Archived: Oakworth Manor

Oakworth Manor provides personal care for up to 21 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. There were 19 people using the service on the day we inspected. Accommodation is arranged over two floors with a stair lift on the main staircase. There are two lounges and a dining room on the ground floor and bedrooms are a mixture of single and double rooms.

The home had a registered manager who had been in post since May 2014. 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 told us they felt safe living at the service. Safeguarding protocols were in place and staff understood the types of abuse and how to keep people safe. Safeguarding training had taken place.

Appropriate risk assessments were in place to keep people safe and people's risk assessments formed the basis of person centred care plans.

Accidents and incidents were documented and analysed. We saw actions taken as a result, such as reviewing people's risk assessments and care plans.

Medicines were mostly managed appropriately. However, some recording and procedures for checking medicines were not accurate and there were no protocols for 'as required' (PRN) medicines which had been identified as an issue at the previous inspection.

Robust recruitment processes were in place and staff had received appropriate training to provide effective care and support. Staff numbers were appropriate for keeping people safe and staff received regular supervision and annual appraisal.

Checks were conducted on equipment and the building although we found the gas safety check was several months out of date.

The service was complying with the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and consent was sought wherever possible. People or their legal representative were involved with planning of care and consent forms were seen in people's care records. People's preferences were sought and choice offered.

A choice of food was offered at mealtimes and people were supported to consume a healthy and nutritious diet. Food supplements were used where required and people were encouraged to eat at their own pace. Appropriate referrals had been made to the dietician and people's weights and food/fluid intake was recorded. A high emphasis was put on encouraging people's fluid intake through the use of hydration bottles.

People had access to a range of health care services. Health care professionals we spoke with told us communication from the service was good and their advice and recommendations were followed.

We saw kind and compassionate interactions between staff and people who used the service. The atmosphere was calm and relaxed with people's relatives and friends encouraged to visit without restrictions.

The service employed an activities coordinator and a range of activities were on offer, with people given the choice to participate.

A complaints policy was in place and we saw any complaints received were taken seriously, investigated and actions taken as a result.

Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor and analyse the quality of the service and any required improvements. However, these were not always effective as some of the issues we found during our inspection had not been identified through the audits.

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service well led?

In this report, the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a registered manager on our register at the time.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people who used the service, their relatives, staff supporting them and from looking at records.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

The manager organised the staff rotas and took people's care and support needs into account when making decisions about the numbers, qualifications, skills and experience required. This helped to ensure that people's needs were always met.

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents and concerns. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

Is the service effective?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. Staff we spoke with knew about people's care and support needs and their individual preferences.

People's preferences, interest and needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service caring?

We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People said; 'I am quite happy here, the staff are very good.' Another person said; 'Everyone is friendly and mucks in. I am well looked after.'

A relative told us they visited regularly without notice and they were happy their relative was well cared for in the home.

People's preferences and interests had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. People told us they had never needed to make a complaint but if they did they thought complaints would be investigated and action taken as necessary.

Is the service well-led?

The manager has applied to CQC for registration; they had been in post since December 2013. People living in the home and staff told us a number of improvements had been made by this manager. One person said 'It is a much nicer place to work in. It is much calmer and not rushed. This makes it better for the residents as well.'

We saw a range of audit tools were in place so the effectiveness of the service could be monitored.

The manager was present at the home on a daily basis. People were able to identify them and told us if they had any concerns they were confident they would be rectified.