Archived: Oaklea Nursing Home

At the time of our inspection in July 2014 there were 15 people who used the service. We looked at a range of records, spoke with the manager, five members of staff, six people who used the service and three relatives. We also observed the interactions between staff and people living at Oaklea Nursing Home.

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

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

Is the service safe?

Everyone we spoke with told us they felt safe and secure living at Oaklea Nursing Home. Staff we spoke with understood the procedures which they needed to follow that ensured people were safe. People were protected against the risks associated with the use and management of medicines. They received their medicines at the times they needed them and in a safe way. Medicines were recorded appropriately and kept safely. People told us that they had no concerns about their medicines.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff had received training in relation to safeguarding of vulnerable adults and had an understanding of the actions. Staff had not received training on the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Recruitment practice was safe and thorough. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.

Is it effective?

People had their needs assessed and had individual care records which set out their care needs. People told us that they received the care and support they needed.

We saw evidence of how the information from people's care records was transferred into practice. Examples included the use of certain equipment, such as moving and handling equipment and how someone was cared for in bed. It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff that they had a good understanding of the people's care and support needs and that they knew them well.

Arrangements were in place to administer medicines at the right time in relation to meals, or to meet the needs of people who required their medicines at specific times of the day.

Is it caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that staff engaged with people in a positive way and showed respect, kindness and gave people gentle encouragement. People's needs had been assessed and care plans put in place which detailed people's needs and preferences. These records provided a good level of information to staff on what care and support people who lived at Oaklea Nursing Home needed. Care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. In one care record we looked at, the first page was my daily routine at a glance; this provided essential information on how that person wished to be cared for, this information was not in any other care records we looked at. We spoke with the manager about making all care records consistent.

Is it responsive?

There was clear evidence contained within people's care plans to show how they worked with other health and social care professionals. Information on visits and appointments were kept in a separate file called an investigation file.

People told us that they knew how to make a complaint if they needed to. We spoke with people who used the service about the complaints process and they all said they would go to the manager with any problem.

It is well led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

There were systems in place to assure the quality of the service they provided. The way the service was run was regularly reviewed. The provider may wish to note that we saw in some monthly audits the same issues came up repeatedly and had not been addressed.

People who used the service, their relatives and friends had opportunities to feedback about the service via an annual survey. No relatives meetings took place. We spoke with the manager who said that people talk to her each time they visited.

Staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and were knowledgeable about people's needs. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

We saw that a system for regular quality assurance and monitoring of medicines

management was in place.

What people told us.

We spoke with three relatives. One said "They have done wonders with her" Another said "The matron is not very friendly or approachable, I am not kept up to date with my relatives care," ”X member of staff is an absolute treasure, goes above and beyond,” and also "They are 100% tops.”

People who used the service said "Staff are very good, they will do anything you want,” “They look after me well, they make the beds well,” and “Matron is very good but works far too hard,” and “I always get my meds on time.”

Staff said "It’s gorgeous working here, I love care," and "families are nice, residents are adorable, I don’t treat this as a job, it is more than that," and "I treat all the residents like I would my nan and granddad, they deserve the best of everything."

At this inspection we found that improvements had been made. Care plans had been reviewed and updated. We saw that care files were organised and contained up to date information which was signed, dated and accurate.

Records were available to confirm that supervision had been undertaken with staff. Records for the maintenance of equipment were available for inspection.

Records were accurate and fit for purpose which helped to protect people who used the service from the risks of receiving unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment.

We were able to observe the experiences of people who used the service. We saw that staff treated people with dignity and respect. We saw that people had their needs assessed and that care plans were in place.

People’s health, safety and welfare were protected when more than one provider was involved in their care and treatment, or when they moved between different services.

We saw that people lived in a homely environment that promoted their wellbeing.

We saw that the service had appropriate equipment. We saw that regular checks and servicing of equipment was undertaken to ensure that it was safe to use.

We saw that staff received training, were well supported by the manager and received an annual appraisal.

Records were not accurate or fit for purpose and did not protect people who used the service from the risks of receiving unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment.

We were able to observe the experiences of people who used the service. We saw that staff treated people with dignity and respect. Staff were attentive and interacted well with people. We saw that staff communicated well with people and explanations of care were given in a way that could be easily understood. When people asked staff for assistance this was done kindly and discreetly.

We saw that people had their needs assessed and that care plans were in place. One person told us how staff had supported them on a visit to hospital. This person said, "Whenever I go to the hospital one of the staff always comes with me to support and help."

On the day of the inspection there were sufficient staff to meet the needs of people and we found that staff had received training.