Archived: Oaklands Road

82 Oaklands Road is a supported living service that provides care to three people with a learning disability. The provider is Certitude, which has a number of supported living homes in London providing support for people with learning disabilities, autism and mental health needs. At the time of our inspection there were three people living at the service. All three people had lived at the service for over ten years.

The registered manager had been in their role since 2013 and had recently returned from extended leave. 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.

We saw there were procedures in place to safeguard people, staff knew how to respond if they suspected abuse, there were enough staff to support people using the service and risk assessments minimised harm to people using the service.

There were a number of service checks carried out to ensure the environment was safe. Medicines were administered and stored safely.

Supervisions and appraisals were up to date to develop staff members’ skills to enable them to carry out their duties effectively.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink and were able to have food and drinks when they wanted to.

People had access health care services and the service worked with other community based agencies.

We observed staff were kind, people’s dignity and privacy was respected and staff were aware of of people’s individual needs and preferences.

An appropriate complaints procedure was available

The service had systems in place to monitor how effectively the service was run to ensure people’s needs were being met.

Relatives and staff indicated they could speak to the registered manager about concerns.

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask;

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found:

Is the service safe?

People's individual needs had been assessed and were regularly reviewed. Their individual choices and preferences regarding their support and care were valued and respected. People received their medicines safely and by staff that were trained. Staff provided support to people to take their medicines when they needed them.

Risks were assessed and reviewed regularly to ensure people's individual needs were being met safely.

Staff had undertaken training on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and were aware of their responsibilities in relation to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Relatives we spoke with told us they felt their family members were cared for safely. One relative said 'I don't have to worry anymore as they look after my family member very well'.

Is the service effective?

Relatives we spoke with told us they were involved and consulted about the care and support their family member required. They said they were involved in care plan reviews and were kept up to date.

People had access to health and social care professionals to meet their needs. The staff worked well with them to make sure people received their care in a joined up way.

Staff had received training to meet the needs of the people living in the home and had a good understanding of people's individual needs.

Is the service caring?

Staff treated people with kindness, respecting their right to maintain their independence. Privacy and dignity were respected. Throughout our inspection we saw staff communicating with people using communication methods that people understood.

Is the service responsive?

People were supported to maintain relationships with people that were important to them. Relatives told us that the staff were 'flexible', 'very accommodating' and 'went out of their way' to make sure that people were able to maintain contact.

People were able to participate in activities that they enjoyed. Both relatives told us that annual holidays were arranged, along with activities in the community.

People were made aware of the complaints procedure. This was provided in a format that met their needs.

Is the service well led?

The manager had been in post since October 2013 and had applied for registration with the Care Quality Commission. Staff told us they felt well supported by the manager and they all said they understood their roles and responsibilities.

Both relatives we spoke with said the manager was approachable and if they had any concerns they would be confident to raise these with her.

Systems were in place to make sure that the manager and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents.

The provider had systems in place to monitor standards of care provided in the home; however we found that the systems were not being followed and this meant that people were at risk of receiving unsafe or inappropriate care.

People's needs were assessed and support plans developed that ensured people's needs were met effectively. Relatives we spoke with confirmed that they were involved in care plan reviews and were informed of any changes to care and treatment. Comments we received included 'I am very happy with the care' another said 'everything is as good as can be'.

People's dietary and nutrition needs were met. People were able to participate in menu planning and meal preparation.

Systems were in place to safeguard people and for people to raise any concerns they had. Relatives said 'I have peace of mind' and 'I do feel more secure knowing that my relative is being looked after'.

The home was clean and well maintained. Regular assessments were carried out to ensure that the premises were safe for people living at the service.

There were adequate numbers of staff to meet people's needs effectively.