You are here

Good Oaks Home Care (Mid-Sussex) Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 21 July 2018

This inspection took place on 11 July 2018 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice because the location provides a care at home service. We wanted to be sure that someone would be in to speak with us.

This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults. CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with 'personal care'; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection the service were providing personal care to 19 people with a range of health and social care needs, such as people with a physical disability, sensory impairment or people living with dementia.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.’

People told us that they felt safe. Staff had a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities for identifying and reporting allegations of abuse and knew how to access policies and procedures regarding protecting people from abuse. Risks to people were assessed and monitored.

People's medicines were managed safely by staff. People were supported by staff who the provider checked were suitable to work with them. In addition, there were enough staff to care for people.

People were encouraged to live healthy lives and received food of their choice. People received support with their day to day healthcare needs.

Staff considered peoples capacity using the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) as guidance. People's capacity to make decisions had been assessed. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff were trained in subjects relevant to the needs of the people who used the service and received regular supervision which enabled them to develop in their roles. Staff said they felt supported.

Staff spoke to people respectfully and treated them with dignity and respect. People felt that their privacy was respected and staff kept information confidential. People were involved in planning their support.

People's individuality was respected and people's preferences were taken into account when planning their care such as religion. There was an accessible complaints process in place which people knew how to use if they needed to however people told us that they hadn't needed to make a complaint.

People said that the registered manager was approachable and listened to them. Staff felt that the registered manager was open and they were able to raise any concerns and receive with a good response. The vision and values of the organisation were visible within the service and staff were proud to work at the service.

Quality assurance and information governance systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. People and relatives all told us that they were happy with the service provided and the way it was managed.

Inspection areas



Updated 21 July 2018

The service was safe. People were protected against the risk of

harm and abuse as staff received training in safeguarding and were aware of the appropriate response to suspected abuse.

Sufficient numbers of suitable staff were deployed to keep people safe. Staff underwent pre-employment checks to check their suitability for the role, prior to commencing employment.

People were protected against the risk of avoidable harm, as the provider had developed risk management plans that identified the risk and gave staff guidance on how to mitigate those risks.



Updated 21 July 2018

The service was effective. Staff received regular training to enhance their knowledge and skills to effectively meet people's needs.

The manager and staff knew their responsibilities in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 legislation. People's consent to care and treatment was sought and respected.

Where agreed in people's care plans, people were supported to access sufficient amounts of food and drink that met their dietary needs and requirements.



Updated 21 July 2018

The service was caring. People and their relatives were happy with the care and support they received.

People were treated with dignity, respect and had their human rights encouraged and promoted.

People received the level of support they needed and had their independence encouraged wherever possible.



Updated 21 July 2018

The service was responsive. People received person centred care and support. Care plans were devised with people, their relatives and healthcare professionals' input.

People and relatives understood how to complain about the service, and had confidence their concerns would be addressed.

People�s choices and personal preferences were met and regularly reviewed.



Updated 21 July 2018

The service was well-led. People and their relatives were asked for their views. They and staff could approach the registered manager with their queries and they were listened to so that improvements could be made.

The registered manager was visible and approachable and we received positive feedback about the management of the service from people using the service, their relatives and staff.

Audits were carried out across a wide range of areas and this showed that the registered manager monitored quality and performance regularly.