Archived: Oaklands Nursing Home

There were 43 people using the service when we visited. As part of this inspection we spoke with the three people using the service, three relatives, two nurses, two carers and the registered manager and another manager who analysed audits and surveys and produced reports. We also reviewed records relating to the management of the home which included care plans for four people, medication administration records, staffing rotas, staff training records, policies and quality audits.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, their relatives and the staff told us, what we observed and the records we looked at.

Is the service safe?

The service was safe. We saw that comprehensive risk assessments had taken place before people had gone to live at the home. These included physical health, mobility, nutrition and communication. The home was clean and staff understood how to prevent and control any infection. Protective equipment was supplied by the provider. Medicines were administered safely although documentation could be improved. There were enough nursing and care staff on duty to meet the needs of the people living at the home.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. While no applications had needed to be submitted, proper policies and procedures were in place. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and how to submit one.

Is the service effective?

The service was effective. People told us that they were happy with the care they received and felt their needs had been met. It was clear from what we saw and from speaking with staff that they understood people's care and support needs and that they knew them well. One person said, 'I particularly like the performance of the staff, they look after us all.' A relative said, 'They've been brilliant.' They told us about the improvement to a person's health since they had been living at the home. Relatives and a person using the service said they would recommend the home to other people. One person said they had already recommended the home to friends. Staff had received enough training that was relevant to the needs of the people living at the home.

Is the service caring?

The service was caring. A person using the service said that the staff were caring and, 'Do as much as they can to help us in any way they can.' A relative told us, 'The staff are very friendly. (The person using the service) cannot see well so the staff always say hello and tell (them) their names.'

We spoke with staff who knew people's needs and we observed them interact with different people in a kind and caring way. We saw that staff were patient and gentle when helping people, using humour when appropriate. People told us they were able to do things at their own pace and were not rushed. Our observations confirmed this.

Is the service responsive?

The service was responsive to the changing needs of people using the service and to comments and suggestions. We saw that assessments of people's needs resulted in care plans that staff read. The care plans helped staff to know the needs and care that individual people required. Care plans were changed if people's needs changed. A person had been at high risk of malnutrition when they had first come to the home and their care plan reflected improvement. People told us that staff were responsive to their needs and requests. We saw that comments and suggestions made by people and relatives had been responded to.

Is the service well led?

The service was well led by an experienced registered manager. They were supported by a deputy manager, training manager and an administration team. People said the home was well run and that the manager, 'Runs a tight ship.' They explained that this meant they thought that high standards were set and maintained by the manager. We saw that the manager was pro-actively planning improvement to assessment documentation. The service had a system in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service.

We observed staff interacting with people and noted that they were caring, sensitive and aware of people's needs.

Staff confirmed that they received good training and regular supervision. They said the manager was very supportive. One junior member of staff said "I've had training in everything going!"

The home cooperated with other health and social care providers to ensure that people received safe and coordinated care.

The home was clean and there were systems in place to prevent and control the spread of infection.

People we spoke with said they were happy with the care provided. Comments included "I get the care I need"; "I'm very impressed and the nursing care is very good"; "I'm happy here".

People's social needs were also met. One person said "There's always something on the go if you want to join in".

People had no complaints about the food and knew there were choices available. Comments included "The food is average to good and you always get a choice" and "The food is very good on the whole, you always get offered two choices but can ask for anything you like". One person told us they had specific dietary needs and the chef had consulted with them and provided what they required.

People told us they felt confident that any matters raised with the home would be dealt with appropriately and that they felt safe in Oaklands. They also said they liked their rooms and were happy with the accommodation provided.