The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Oasis Community Care Ltd

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

Ground Floor Office, 17 Callywith Gate, Launceston Road, Bodmin, Cornwall, PL31 2RQ (01208) 77159

Provided and run by:
Oasis Community Care Ltd

All Inspections

1 April 2016

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 1, 22, 23, and 25 July and 14 August 2015. After that inspection we received information in relation to the resignation of nine care staff who had resigned from their role within a period of seven days. Due to these resignations, the service was not able to deliver care to some people and their care arrangements were handed back to the Local Authority without notice. This raised concerns around how people’s care needs would be met safely going forward. We were also concerned as we had not received a notification in relation to this matter in line with the providers obligations to make reports to us. As a result we undertook a focused inspection to look into those concerns. This report only covers our findings in relation to these topics. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Oasis Community Care on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Oasis Community Care Ltd provides domiciliary care services to adults within East Cornwall. On the day of the inspection Oasis Community Care was providing support to 85 people including people with physical disabilities, sensory impairments, mental health needs and people living with dementia.

The service had two registered managers in post. 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.

When we arrived at the service on 1 April 2016 we were met by the nominated individual. Neither of the registered managers were at work. We were told that Oasis Community Care Limited would be withdrawing from the delivery of care to people in their own homes (“stepping down”) and that staff and all the people would be transferred to another local domiciliary care service. The nominated individual told us that this receiving agency had agreed to the transfer in principal and the plan was for the transfer to go ahead on 4 April 2016. With this change scheduled to take place imminently, we conducted a focused inspection to assure ourselves that people would be safe over the short time frame until the transfer took place.

We found that there were sufficient staff on the rota to ensure visits were covered until the transfer took place. There were contingency plans in place in case staff were sick and there was an effective on call system in place.

People’s risk assessments were not always up to date This meant staff might not always have the most current information about how to support people. Peoples care plans had been found at the previous inspection in 2015 not to have been regularly reviewed. This issue was not addressed during this inspection due to the imminent handover of peoples support to another provider.

The registered managers did not have robust systems in place to assess the on-going quality and monitoring of the service.

We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

1, 22, 23, & 25 July & 14 August 2015

During a routine inspection

Oasis Community Care Ltd provides domiciliary care services to adults within East Cornwall. On the day of the inspection Oasis Community Care was providing support to 184 people including those with physical disabilities, sensory impairments, mental health needs and people living with dementia.

At our last inspection in May 2014 the provider was meeting all of the Essential Standards inspected.

The service had two registered managers in post. 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 care staff were kind and caring and described staff as “wonderful” and “lovely girls”. Staff had a good understanding of how to respect and promote people’s privacy and dignity. Staffing was organised to ensure people’s cultural needs were met. People told us staff were respectful at all times and felt safe when they were being supported in their own homes.

People were supported by staff who had been recruited safely, were suitable to work with vulnerable people and received appropriate training. The registered managers and staff had a good understanding of how to report any safeguarding concerns. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs but people told us they were not always informed when staff were running late.

People’s care plans and risk assessments were not always detailed and reflective of people’s needs and how they wished to be supported. This meant staff did not always have sufficient information about how to support people. People were supported with their medicine by staff who had been trained.

Staff always sought people’s consent to assist them with their personal care needs but this was not documented and people’s care plans did not take into consideration the Mental Capacity Act to make sure people who did not have the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves, had their legal rights protected. Staff also sought the person’s consent before sharing information with others, for example speaking to the person’s family or their GP if they had concerns. A health care professional said they had no concerns about the care staff provided.

People felt they could complain and that their complaints would be investigated and resolved. However, some people had recently received a poor response to their complaints, of which the registered managers had apologised for and action had been taken. People’s main complaints had been in respect of late visits and about not being informed. People’s feedback was valued and used to facilitate improvements.

People did not fully understand the management structure of the service which meant they did not always know who to contact. Staff enjoyed working for the organisation and told us the registered managers were supportive. The registered managers did not have effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. The registered managers worked positively with other external agencies when supporting people with health care concerns.

We found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

19 May 2014

During a routine inspection

We gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? We gathered information from people who used the service by talking with them.

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLs) is a legal framework which protects people who do not have the mental capacity to make decisions for themselves. We saw from the provider's training records that not all staff had completed training in respect of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). The office manager and provider told us they would ensure all staff received MCA and DOLs training as a priority.

We found that people's care plans contained risk assessments to support staff to reduce and prevent a risk to the person or to themselves.

Is the service effective?

People were mostly complimentary of the care and support they received and told us 'Wonderful', 'absolutely brilliant', 'perfectly delighted', 'excellent', 'the best around', 'we have a lovely rapport', 'always polite and so kind', 'no-one could complain about them', 'lovely girls all the ones I've had' and 'I'd give them 10/10'. However, we did receive less satisfactory comments about time keeping and communication with the agency.

We found that further action was required to ensure care plans were accurate, up to date and a true reflection of people's care needs.

Is the service caring?

We found the service to be caring. People told us staff were kind and caring. Comments received included one by a person who said they would be 'very upset if anything changed as they had had the same person visit for two years'.

Is the service responsive?

We received mixed comments about this. More than one person told us they were unsure who to complain to. One person said they had been given different names of supervisors and they believed the manager had changed. They said they had complained about the key safe being left open, but had received no response. Others told us they had complained and the company had apologised and assured them the incident wouldn't happen again and it hadn't.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a manager who was not yet registered with the Care Quality Commission, but they told us this was in hand. The agency had a system in place to ensure senior staff were available for people to speak with them at any time.

We found the office manager and provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service being provided although the monitoring and auditing of care records required improvement.

People told us communication could be better.