Archived: Oakfield Independent Care and Support Services

As part of the inspection we visited four people with their consent, who received a service from the agency, and spoke with two relatives on the telephone. We spoke with two care staff on the telephone and met with three care staff, and two of the three providers. We also spoke with the registered manager who assisted with the inspection. We reviewed policies and records relating to the management of the home which included, six care plans, daily care records and three staff files.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. One person we spoke with who received personal care said, 'I feel safe when the carers are here. It's always safer to have someone there when I bathe'.

Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff had a good understanding of how to keep safe the people they supported. Care staff completed a checklist on their departure from a person's home, to ensure the safety and security of the property alongside the person's comfort and peace of mind.

We found that people were protected from abuse or the risk of abuse because the agency followed procedures and took steps which ensured that immediate action was taken where there was an allegation or suspicion of abuse.

Risk assessments plans were in place and staff knew how to follow them. People were offered choice and remained in control of decisions which affected their care and their lives.

Is the service effective?

People's care and support needs were assessed with their full involvement. Care plans were regularly reviewed and changes made to the care provided where this was requested or required.

People we visited told us they had felt reassured by the initial visit from the registered manager where they were able to talk about what help was needed to enable them to remain at home.

The agency enabled people to stay in their own home with support from the agency. People's dignity, independence, choice and privacy were given maximum priority. One person told us that the staff's presence made them feel more relaxed.

Is the service caring?

We found that the care and support provided was very personal and took account of individual preferences, wishes and choice. One member of staff said, 'it's is simple, we listen and ask people what they want and we respect their wishes'.

We observed communications between staff and people, who knew each other well. Staff listened to what people said, asked them how they wanted their care and support provided and gave people time to choose.

People we met said that the staff were 'very friendly and caring'. One person said staff, 'always have a smile and it makes such a difference'. People told us staff were not rushed and had sufficient time to do what they required. Staff told us they felt they had enough time to talk with people and one said, 'I always ask and check if anything extra is needed before I leave'.

We saw that the staff encouraged and supported people in making their own decisions about how they needed help and spent their time. For example, we noticed how a person was encouraged, with very gentle persuasion to eat a meal before the carer completed their visit.

Is the service responsive?

The agency provided a flexible service that enabled people to remain in their own homes and to live independently within their community. A relative we spoke with told us that, 'the service is so flexible. If there is ever any extra care needed the manager just arranges it'. Two people we visited told us that the agency's support, 'keeps us here at home, where we want to be'.

We spoke with four people who received support and two relatives who all told us that staff always arrived on time. They said they knew who was expected and if there might be a delay they had received a telephone call from the office.

One of the relatives we spoke with told us how quickly the agency had responded to a hospital discharge where care was introduced 'almost immediately, at very little notice'. They said the agency had 'saved our lives and enabled us to remain in the countryside'.

Any 'concerns', 'grumbles', or 'niggles' raised with the registered manager were immediately dealt with. Everyone we spoke with said they had never had cause to raise a compliant but they did know who to speak with if they did.

Is the service well led?

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided. People, their relatives and the staff were encouraged to provide feedback on the service at any time.

An annual quality survey was conducted and results collated to identify any trends or areas for improvement. Suggestions and ideas for improvement to the service were welcomed and acted on.

Staff told us they were well supported and trained. They were clear about their roles and responsibilities and had a good understanding of the ethos and values of the agency and of the quality processes in place.

Clear management structures and lines of accountability were in place which helped to ensure efficient communication. Weekly management meetings monitored all aspects of the service and regularly reviewed procedures in operation, which helped to ensure a quality service was provided.

The three partners of the company were also actively involved in the day to day operation of the service which meant they had a full understanding of the service provided and knew everyone who received a service and all the staff employed.

We visited the agency office and spoke to the registered manager, looked at the agency's systems, three people's care records and three staff records. We spoke with seven staff (four care workers, two office workers and the manager) and asked them about how they supported people and their experience of working for the agency. We found that people were fully involved in their assessment and in making choices about their care. People confirmed their care needs were agreed with them and care records were regularly reviewed and updated, as needed. The care records we looked at accurately reflected the care needs described to us by people receiving the service. The provider had robust systems in place to ensure suitable staff were employed with the skills and personal attributes to meet the needs of existing clients.

The agency met the five standards we inspected.