We carried out a review of the data available to us about Oakland Village & Community Care Centre on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Oakland Village & Community Care Centre, you can give feedback on this service.
About the service
Oakland Village & Community Care Centre is a residential care home which is part of a larger village complex. It provides personal and nursing care for up to 32 people. The service provides support to older people and those living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 27 people using the service.
The care home is across two floors with communal areas and kitchens on each floor. There is a provision for eight people to have short term rehabilitation care in partnership with health professionals. There are a variety of additional facilities available within Oakland Village and many of these are open to the general public as well as to people living at the home; such as a bistro, restaurant, bar and hair salon.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
We found the provider had systems in place to ensure ongoing quality standards and improvements. People we spoke with enjoyed the atmosphere of the home and felt relaxed and included in any changes.
People and staff respected the registered manager who had a strong belief in providing person-centred care which was reflected in the care being provided. People told us the staff were kind, thoughtful and knew them well.
Staff were supported in their role; they had received training to ensure their learning and abilities when supporting people living with dementia. There was enough staff to support people’s needs and the registered manager provided a flexible approach to provide extra staff when required for activities or to support staff returning from absence.
People told us they felt safe and there were measures in place to safeguard people which staff understood and followed if required. Risk assessments had been completed to reduce any ongoing risk, for example falls or the use of equipment.
Infection prevention and control was managed in line with the government guidance and people were supported with visitors to the home or other forms of contact.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
There was a choice of meals and those people who required a varied diet or different consistency this was provided. Some people required support, and this was done in a courteous way. People’s weights were monitored, and any concerns were addressed through diet or guidance from health care professionals.
There was a link with health and social care professionals which was used to ensure people received the required support for their long-term health conditions. When people’s health had deteriorated referrals were made to GP’s or other professionals to obtain the required care to keep people well.
The environment was decorated to suit peoples tastes and needs. We saw when improvements were carried out people had been engaged in the choices.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection and update
The last rating for this service was requires improvement (4 May 2019). At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the rating for the service is now good.
Why we inspected
We undertook this inspection as part of a random selection of services who had received a review of the information we held about this service.
For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good based on the findings of this inspection.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
People’s experience of using this service:
The service met the characteristics of requires improvement, with good ratings in three domains.
The systems in place to monitor and drive improvement were not always effective in doing so. Some staff had not received the training they needed to do their job effectively. People did not always have their capacity to make their own decisions assessed to ensure they had maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. We made a recommendation for the provider to fully comply with the Mental Capacity Act.
People continued to receive safe care. There were enough staff to support them and they were recruited to ensure that they were safe to work with people. People were protected from the risk of harm and received their prescribed medicines safely. Lessons were learnt from when mistakes happened.
People received caring and kind support from staff who respected their dignity and privacy. They were encouraged to be independent and staff understood their needs well. Staff were skilled in understanding the needs of people who were living with dementia and engaged them in meaningful activities. Staff knew them well and understood how to care for them in a personalised way.
People were supported to maintain good health and nutrition; including partnerships with other organisations when needed. There were plans in place which detailed people’s likes and dislikes. People and relatives knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint.
The registered manager was approachable and there were meetings in place which encouraged people and staff to give their feedback. The environment was adapted to meet people’s needs.
More information is in the full report.
Rating at last inspection: The service was last inspected on 9 June 2016 and was rated good.
Why we inspected: This was a scheduled inspection based on the date the service was registered.
Enforcement: Please see action we told provider to take at the end of full report.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
The service was last inspected on 26 and 28 November 2013 and was fully compliant. There were two registered managers, one for the extra care service and one for residential support. 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 were kept safe by staff who understood their responsibilities to protect them from abuse. Risk to their health and wellbeing were assessed and plans were put in place to minimise the risk, which staff followed. Staff were given the training and support that they needed to assist them to meet people’s needs. People told us and we saw that there were sufficient staff to meet their needs. The provider gave staff opportunities to develop their expertise and take champion roles to support and guide others. They developed caring relationships with the people they supported which were respectful and patient. They knew people well and provided care that met their preferences. Staff understood the importance of consent and always explained to people what care they were going to provide. People’s capacity to consent to their care and make their own decisions was assessed and reviewed when required. People’s privacy and dignity were maintained at all times.
People received the medicines they were prescribed safely and there were systems in place to reduce the risks associated with them. The systems varied across the extra care service and the residential unit to meet individual’s needs and all of them were monitored and managed. People were supported to maintain good health and had regular access to healthcare professionals. Their care plans were regularly reviewed to correspond with changing support needs and they were personalised and accessible.
People were encouraged to pursue their interests and hobbies and regular activities were planned weekly. The communal areas of the complex meant that people were able to easily access facilities and social events in a supported environment.
In the residential unit the layout of the building meant that people living with dementia were not restricted and could move about safely and there was signage to help to orientate people. Mealtimes were not rushed and people said that the food was good. We saw that food and drink was regularly provided and records were maintained for people who were nutritionally at risk.
Visitors were welcomed at any time and they were encouraged to provide feedback through meetings and more informally. The provider made links with the local community and established a friends group to assist with planning the direction of the service.
People told us that they knew the managers well and felt confident that any concerns they raised would be resolved promptly. The provider completed quality audits to continually drive improvements.
People that lived in the extra care apartments told us, 'staff are my friends now' and 'couldn't be anywhere better.' Comments about staff support were positive such as, 'will always help' and 'all staff are good.' Other comments were, 'they wash my hair lovely' and 'make sure I Iook my best' and 'all friends together' and 'very professional'.
Throughout our inspection we observed care practices in the long term, short term and intermediate care units and saw that staff were responsive to people's needs and wishes. The care plans seen reflected people's individual needs and took into account equality and diversity issues such as individual preferences and choices, religion and dietary needs.
Processes were in place to ensure the services and care provided were monitored and improved upon where needed.