You are here

Archived: Oakwood Grange

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 4 June 2014
Date of Publication: 27 June 2014
Inspection Report published 27 June 2014 PDF | 89.56 KB


Inspection carried out on 4 June 2014

During a routine inspection

At the time of this inspection, 59 people were living at Oakwood Grange. We observed the care those people received, spoke with eleven people who used the service, five family members, two healthcare professionals, the registered manager and three members of staff, as well as reviewing relevant documentation.

Two adult social care inspectors carried out this inspection. We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask: Is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led?

Below is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

People received safe and appropriate care that met their needs and supported their rights. Assessments of needs were carried out, in order that a plan of care could be formulated. Where required there were risk assessments in place for people who used the service in relation to their support and care provision. This meant actions could be taken to minimise any risks, whilst at the same time, taking the least restrictive option. Risk assessments were completed in consultation with people or when best interest decisions had been made.

The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found the manager had the necessary knowledge to apply for a DoLS if necessary. This meant that appropriate safeguards in line with current legislation were in place to protect people’s safety and welfare.

People were cared for in a clean environment and protected from the risk of infection because staff were provided with appropriate training and guidelines which were followed. People who used the service and their family member’s comments about cleanliness and hygiene were positive and they thought the home was kept really clean. In the family member survey for March 2014 one relative had commented, “the home is always clean and tidy whenever I visit”. On the inspection a family member and their relative said, “it doesn’t smell. [Family member’s] room is always clean and the washing is immaculate”.

Discussions with people who used the service, family members, staff and a review of records and checks of medicines evidence people were protected against the risks associated with medicines. This was because the systems and processes in place to manage medicines were effective in practice.

There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff on duty to safeguard the health, safety and welfare of people who used the service. In addition to care staff during day time hours there were housekeepers, cooks, laundry staff, administration and management staff on duty.

Systems were in place to make sure the manager and staff analysed and learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. Appropriate action was taken to minimise the risk of further events and help the service to continually improve.

Is the service effective?

People’s health and care needs were assessed with them and people and/or their family members were involved in their care plan. The support people received promoted a good quality of life for people using the service.

Is the service caring?

When we spoke with people who lived at the home and their family members they all said ‘good care’ was provided. Comments about the service included, “they’re lovely lasses. They’ll do anything to help you. We get up when we’re ready and they let us know if anything’s going on. Some people come in to sing. Staff come and talk to us and we tell them anything. It’s home from home. The doctor’s on call”, “it’s excellent care. I can’t fault it. They have all the equipment they need and everything we ask, they’ve done. There’s plenty of activities. Whenever we visit [family member’s] clothes are always clean, their nails are clean and mum’s hair’s immaculate. I feel privileged my mum’s here. We’re involved with all discussions about mum’s care and we’ve been involved in the care plan. I listen from my mum’s room and know it’s not put on. I’ve never heard a negative tone from staff”, “it’s perfect, I’ve no grumbles. If you ask, you get. You couldn’t get better staff. There’s enough [activities] to keep us going. They’ll get a doctor. You can get a bath/shower when you want and get up and go to bed when you want. I’d rate it 10/10”, “they’ve always treated me well. It’s very nice, I like it. We seem to get along well together”, “I see good quality care and they show the same diligence all of the time, be it 10:30 in a morning or 20:30 at night and it’s never changed from the day I came to now. They do it right. It’s professional and efficient. They take time to get to know everybody, so that they can short circuit people’s thoughts and therefore ease their distress. Everyone’s world exists, because they plug into it so readily. Everyone is a person. They work with health professionals. They’re compassionate to the nth degree. They grieve when somebody goes. This place should be a beacon for how things should be done, because good practice is engrained”, “we looked round at least 24 homes before we chose this one. The staff are very, very good and do their job well. A lot go the extra mile. They always keep us informed if [family member’s] ill or had a fall. We visit a number of times a week at different times and it’s always the same. We’ve seen [family member’s] care plan a number of times” and “they’ve been really good at managing [family member’s] health conditions. We couldn’t put [family member] anywhere safer. I’m not frightened. They know mum and everyone’s welcome and treated the same. They try and make each person special. I would recommend it”.

We saw staff engaging with people who used the service. This demonstrated positive relationships had developed. Staff treated people with kindness and compassion when providing their day to day care and responded in a caring way to people’s needs. Our observations of staff demonstrated they had a clear knowledge of people’s individual likes and preferences.

Is the service responsive?

Services were organised so that they met people’s needs. People were provided with stimulation through activities and were supported to maintain relationships with family members. Staff responded promptly to any changes in people’s needs and care plans were updated accordingly.

Is the service well-led?

The leadership, management and governance of the organisation was focused on the delivery of person-centred care. The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

The service encouraged an open and transparent culture, promoting communication with people, staff and other stakeholders.

Staff we spoke with told us they felt supported by the manager and felt they were able to raise any concerns with her. Comments by staff included, “I love working here, it’s amazing”, “I think it’s a well led service. The manager’s strict but fair because she wants the home running to the highest standard. It’s a good staff team. If staff don’t feel they can raise concerns with the manager they can complete the staff survey anonymously” and “senior care staff and managers listen to us”.

Discussions with staff demonstrated that they were clear about their roles and responsibilities.

Our review of records and conversations with staff showed us that discussions about best practice, improved ways of working and incident reviews were common throughout formal team meetings and informal discussions.

The service had a quality assurance system in place. Records seen by us showed that identified actions were addressed within identified timescales.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.