You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 4 May 2018

Oak Manor is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Oak Manor is registered to accommodate 64 people in one purpose built building over two floors. At the time of the inspection 24 people were using the service.

There was a manager in post who was in the process of completing their registration with the Care Quality Commission, (CQC).

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 and their relatives knew the manager and were able to see them when required.

There were processes in place to protect people from avoidable harm and staff were aware of their responsibilities to report them. Risks to people were assessed and managed appropriately.

Staff had been recruited using a robust recruitment process. There were enough trained staff to support people with their needs.

Staff had attended a variety of training to keep their skills up to date and were supported with regular supervision.

Systems were in place for the safe management of medicines and people were protected by the prevention and control of infection.

The provider had processes in place for when things went wrong and lessons were learnt in order to improve the service.

People could make choices about their food and drink and were provided with support when required.

People had access to additional health care professionals to ensure they received effective care or treatment when required.

Staff gained consent to care before supporting people, this was sought in line with legislation.

Staff treated people with kindness and compassion. People were treated with dignity and respect, and had the privacy they required.

People’s needs had been assessed prior to admission. Care and support plans were personalised and reflected people’s individual requirements. People and their relatives were involved in decisions regarding their care and support needs.

There was a variety of activities on offer and people were supported to follow their interests. People were able to make decisions about their daily activities.

People knew how to complain. There was a complaints procedure in place.

The provider had a clear vision, and were open and transparent. Quality monitoring systems were in place and were effective and people and their relatives were involved in developing the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 4 May 2018

The service was safe

Staff were knowledgeable about protecting people from harm and abuse and processes were in place to report any concerns.

Staff had been recruited using a robust recruitment process. There were enough trained staff to support people with their needs.

Systems were in place for the safe management of medicines.

Risks to people were assessed and managed appropriately.

People were protected by the prevention and control of infection.

When things went wrong, lessons were learnt in order to improve the service.

Effective

Good

Updated 4 May 2018

The service was effective.

People�s needs had been assessed prior to admission.

Staff had attended a variety of training to keep their skills up to date and were supported with regular supervision.

People could make choices about their food and drink and were provided with support when required.

People had access to health care professionals to ensure they received effective care or treatment.

Consent to care was sought in line with legislation.

Caring

Good

Updated 4 May 2018

The service was caring.

Staff treated people with kindness and compassion.

People were able to make decisions about their daily activities.

People were treated with dignity and respect, and had the privacy they required.

Responsive

Good

Updated 4 May 2018

The service was responsive.

Care and support plans were personalised and reflected people�s individual requirements.

People and their relatives were involved in decisions regarding their care and support needs.

There was a variety of activities on offer and people were supported to follow their interests.

There was a complaints system in place and people were aware of this.

Well-led

Good

Updated 4 May 2018

The service was well led.

People and their relatives knew the manager and were able to see them when required.

The provider had a clear vision, and were open and transparent.

Quality monitoring systems were in place and were effective.

People and their relatives were involved in developing the service.