Archived: Oxley Lodge

Updated 18 May 2017

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 08 February 2017 and was unannounced. Before the inspection the provider completed a provider information return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and the improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed the information we held about the service. This included any statutory notifications we had received. These are notifications the provider must send us to inform us of certain events, such as serious injuries or allegations of abuse. We spoke with the local authority to gain their views about the quality of the service provided. We used this information to help us plan our inspection of the home.

The inspection team consisted of two inspectors and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of service

During the inspection we spoke with four people who lived at the home and eight relatives. We spoke with three members of staff and the activities coordinator. We also spoke with the home manager the deputy manager and a visiting health professional. We reviewed a range of records about how people received their care. These included five people’s care records and medicines administration records. We also reviewed two staff files and records relating to the management of the service such as, complaints, accidents and incidents and audit and quality checks.

Updated 18 May 2017

This unannounced inspection took place on 8 February 2017. At our last inspection visit in November 2015 we found the provider was meeting the requirements of the law. Oxley Lodge is a residential care home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to 58 older people some of which may have dementia. At the time of our inspection 48 people were living at the home.

At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager 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. The provider had appointed a home manager who told us they had recently submitted the appropriate documents to register them as the registered manager for the service.

People told us they felt safe living at the home. Staff knew what action to take if they had any concerns about people’s safety. People’s risks had been assessed and were appropriately managed and staff had a good understanding of how reduce the risks to people. People received their medicines as prescribed by trained staff and there were systems in place to ensure people’s medicines were managed safely.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff who had been safely recruited. People were supported by suitably skilled staff received appropriate support and training to enable them to effectively meet people’s needs

People were asked for their consent before staff provided care. The principles of the Mental Capacity Act were not being applied and we found the provider was in breach of Regulation 11 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014, need for consent. People had sufficient to eat and drink and had access to healthcare professionals when required.

People were supported by staff who were kind and caring and respected people’s choices. People’s right to privacy and dignity was promoted and people were encouraged to maintain their independence.

People were supported by staff who understood their needs and preferences. Care needs were regularly reviewed and people and their relatives were invited to contribute to the care review process. There had been improvements made to the range of activities available for people to participate in. People and their relatives knew how to complain and felt confident that their concerns would be appropriately managed and resolved.

The provider did not have systems in place to ensure people’s rights were upheld where they lacked capacity. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and felt supported by the registered manager. There were processes in place to gather feedback from people, their relatives and staff, which was used to make improvements to the service. Audit systems were effective at identifying the improvements required and appropriate action was taken to ensure improvements were made.