Archived: Oldfield House

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

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

Is the service safe?

The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were only used when it was considered to be in the person's best interest. This legislation is used to protect people who might not be able to make informed decisions on their own. The manager demonstrated a good awareness of their role in protecting people's rights and recording decisions made in their best interest.

Systems were in place to make sure that the manager and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly therefore not putting people at unnecessary risk.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in discussions about their care. Specialist dietary and mobility equipment needed had been identified in care plans where required. People said they liked living at the home and staff were kind and caring. One relative said, 'I am very happy with the care here, I would not want my relative to live anywhere else.'

Is the service caring?

The manager had ensured that staff had a good understanding of how to meet people's needs. Staff had attended a basic awareness course to care for people living with dementia. Some staff had completed a more advanced course in dementia care.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. For example, staff ensured they provided activities that were appropriate to the needs of people who used the service.

Is the service responsive?

Relatives we spoke with told us that they felt involved in decisions about their relatives care. They said they were able to give their views on the service and were encouraged to discuss any concerns that they may have had.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. They told us they would speak to the manager and they were confident he would listen to their concerns. Complaints were investigated and action taken as necessary.

Is the service well-led?

The manager had been in post for a good period of time and has been registered with the Commission since September 2013. Relatives were confident in his ability to deal with problems and provide a good service.

The service had a quality assurance system, records seen by us showed that identified shortfalls were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the needs of people who used the service. They told us they enjoyed working at the home, and had confidence in the manager.

People who used the service and their relatives told us they always got enough to eat and that fresh fruit and refreshments were always available. We found that people's weight was recorded and action was taken when they were seen to lose weight.

People who used the service and their relatives told us they felt that the home was clean. We found that people were protected against the risks of infection.

People who used the service and their relatives told us they felt staff knew what they were doing. We found that staff were given appropriate training, supervision and appraisal.

People who used the service told us they knew how to make a complaint and who to complain to. There was a complaints procedure in place and staff were aware of their responsibilities to report verbal complaints so they could be formally investigated.

People told us they were happy with the care they received. We observed care being given in a way which was both safe and considerate. We also reviewed care records which showed that risk assessments and formal reviews were undertaken to ensure care was effective and safe.

People told us they felt safe at the home. Care workers had undertaken training in safeguarding and were aware of their responsibility to report any abuse.

People told us they thought care workers were well trained and knew what they were doing. We spoke to care workers who said they had regular training, supervision and appraisal. We also reviewed a training matrix which showed that staff had regular training in all appropriate areas.

People said they were asked for their opinion as to the quality of care in the home. We saw that regular meetings were held with people who used the service, relatives and friends, and staff. There were also systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service people received, and to manage any risks to people's health.