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

There should be enough members of staff to keep people safe and meet their health and welfare needs (outcome 13)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Are safe and their health and welfare needs are met by sufficient numbers of appropriate staff.

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

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people’s needs.

Reasons for our judgement

We checked 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.

Overall, when we spoke with people and their family members they spoke highly of staff, saying as with everywhere there were some better than others, but generally there were enough staff and that they were ‘approachable’. One specific comment included, “it feels understaffed, because they’ve not always enough time to spend with people and they need stimulation. The social side is not as good as the caring side. Sometimes staff are not always visible”.

The registered manager told us that the current residency level was 59. We discussed how staffing levels were determined. They told us ‘through dependency levels of people’. They told us during the day a deputy and three care staff worked on the residential unit and on the dementia unit, a deputy and five care staff. Two of the five care staff on the dementia unit worked part time, which meant between the hours of 7:00 and 8:00 and 20:00 and 22:00 there were six members of staff. The additional member of staff at those times was allocated to work where there was the most need. At night there was a deputy and a member of care staff on one floor and on the other a senior and a member of care staff. The deputy and senior alternated floors so that they knew the needs of all people living in the home, because of the nature of their role. The manager also explained that to maintain continuity for people staffing in the main was arranged so the same staff worked on the same floor.

The manager said currently there were two senior care vacancies at the home.

In addition to care staff during day time hours there were house-keepers, cooks, laundry staff, administration and management staff on duty.

The manager provided a sample of staff rotas to confirm the staffing numbers on each unit. We looked at the staffing rota for the week of the inspection and this confirmed in the main staffing numbers that had been described by the manager and staff.

When we spoke with staff they felt overall that during the waking day there were enough staff on duty, but it could be very busy. They told us the staffing levels were as described by the manager. One staff member said, “staffing levels are good. You can give time to ladies to do their nails”.

Two adult social care inspectors undertook this inspection and spent their time on each floor. The provider may wish to note, we saw that staff spent more time stimulating people in activities upstairs than downstairs.