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

People should be cared for in a clean environment and protected from the risk of infection (outcome 8)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Providers of services comply with the requirements of regulation 12, with regard to the Code of Practice for health and adult social care on the prevention and control of infections and related guidance.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 4 June 2014, observed how people were being cared for and talked with people who use the service. We talked with carers and / or family members, talked with staff and reviewed information sent to us by commissioners of services.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Our judgement

People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment.

Reasons for our judgement

We looked at the systems in place to assess the risk of health care associated infections and to prevent, detect and control the spread of the infection. We also checked that appropriate standards of cleanliness and hygiene were in place in relation to the premises, equipment and materials.

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 on 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”.

The manager told us a cleanliness and infection control policy was in place, together with systems and processes to manage the risks associated with infections and cleanliness. This meant staff had a procedure to refer to should they need to. She explained that staffing was also arranged so staff worked in the main on one floor, thus minimising the risk of the spread of infection.

The manager told us staff received infection control training. Our review staff’s training records confirmed this and staff told us about it when we spoke with them.

The manager told us that Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) was available for staff to control the spread of infection. PPE is equipment, such as gloves and aprons available for staff to prevent the spread of infection. This was confirmed by staff when we spoke with them and our observations during the inspection. When we spoke with people and their families they also confirmed staff used PPE and that PPE was available for staff to use.

Discussions with staff confirmed they were clear of their role in relation to preventing the spread of infection.

We found that rooms used to dispose of waste were secure, which meant access was restricted to those that needed it, minimising the risk of the spread of infection and maintaining people’s safety.

Our observations of the home was that it was kept clean, which meant the systems in place to maintain cleanliness and prevent the spread of infection were effective in practice.

Records were seen of a sample of systems in place to prevent and detect any risks associated with the spread of infection. This included evidence of waste disposal.