Archived: Oak House Residential Home

Oak House is a residential care home providing personal care to 16 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 25 people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People felt safe. Staff understood their responsibilities to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks were assessed and managed. The provider made changes when concerns were identified so people were safe and risks were reduced.

There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff recruitment was safe because checks were carried out before employment was offered.

People’s medicines were managed in a safe way.

The service was clean and hygienic. Staff followed infection and prevention control systems and government guidance about COVID-19.

The service was person centred. Staff and managers worked together to achieve good outcomes for people. People praised staff and managers and found them open, accessible and approachable.

We have made a recommendation about audits and how they are recorded and shared with staff.

Staff worked with other professionals and authorities, so people received joined up care and support.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (report published 4 January 2019)

Why we inspected

The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about the providers response to a fall and processes for notifying the CQC about incidents. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks.

We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from this concern. Please see the safe and well led sections of this full report.

The ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection for those key questions not looked at on this occasion were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection. The overall rating for the service has remained the same. This is based on the findings at this inspection.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Oak House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

People continued to receive safe care. Staff had a good understanding of abuse and the safeguarding procedures that should be followed to report abuse and incidents of concern. Risk assessments were in place to manage potential risks within people’s lives, whilst also promoting their independence.

The staff recruitment procedures ensured that appropriate pre-employment checks were carried out to ensure only suitable staff worked at the service. Good staffing levels were in place. Staffing support matched the level of assessed needs within the service during our inspection.

Staff induction training and on-going training was provided to ensure they had the skills, knowledge and support they needed to perform their roles. Specialist training was provided to make sure that people’s needs were met and they were supported effectively.

Staff were well supported by the management and senior team, and had regular one to one supervisions. The staff we spoke with were all positive about the senior staff and management in place, and were happy with the support they received.

People's consent was gained before any care was provided. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice

Staff continued to treat people with kindness, dignity and respect and spent time getting to know them and their specific needs and wishes. Care plans reflected people’s likes and dislikes, and staff spoke with people in a friendly manner. Our observations during inspection, were of positive and friendly interactions between staff and people.

People were involved in their own care planning and were able to contribute to the way in which they were supported. People and their family were involved in reviewing their care and making any necessary changes.

A process was in place which ensured people could raise any complaints or concerns. Concerns were acted upon promptly and lessons were learned through positive communication.

The service continued to be well managed. The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. Actions were taken and improvements were made when required.

Rating at last inspection: Good (report published 09/06/2016)

About the service: Oak House Residential Home is a residential care home that was providing personal care to 19 older people at the time of the inspection.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained rated Good overall.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.

Oak House is a service that provides accommodation for up to 25 people. There were 22 people living at the service at this time. Care and support was provided to enable people to live independently and as full a life as possible. People set their own goals and support was provided for people to achieve these.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included any notifications we had received. Notifications tell us about important events which the service is required to tell us by law.

During our visit we spoke with seven members of staff who worked in different areas of the service. For example, we viewed the kitchen areas and spoke with two chefs as well as support staff. We spoke with six people who lived at the service and two relatives. This was to gather their views of the service being provided.

We reviewed a range of records about people’s care and how the service was managed. This included four people’s care plans and associated documents including risk assessments. We also looked at three staff files including their recruitment and training records and the quality assurance audits that the management team completed.

People who used the service told us that they felt safe. Relatives also said that they did not worry about safety as they knew staff always made sure that people were safe and had what they needed. Everyone we spoke with said that staff were caring and treated people with dignity and respect. People also told us that staff knew their individual needs and choices. People accessed the local community and activities were regularly available.

Staff voiced a thorough awareness of how to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm. They also knew what actions to take if they suspected or witnessed any issues that they felt were unacceptable. This meant that staff ensured any incidents of concern were dealt with and reported in a timely manner.

Staff had the necessary training and skills to provide them with the knowledge to support people appropriately. We reviewed the training programme that ensured that basic training was completed by all new staff and then further refresher training was regularly updated. Staff said that they had a programme of training to regularly update their skills. An induction programme was in place for all new staff that were employed at the service.

Relatives said that they knew they would discuss any concerns with staff. People were positive that any issues would be dealt with quickly and appropriately by members of staff.

Healthcare professionals were contacted when this was needed and any directions were followed by staff. Care plans had details of a person’s individual conditions and how to provide the appropriate support. This was confirmed by our discussions with people who lived at the service and also through our review of care plans.

All staff were aware of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) 2008. Our observations and review of records showed that people were encouraged to make independent decisions and choices. People who lived at the service confirmed that staff asked before any support was provided and that they decided how they spent their day.

There were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service. This included regular discussions with people who used the service. The provider regularly issued questionnaires to gather the opinions and thoughts of individuals, the results were then collated and discussed with the staff team.

We observed staff interacting with people who used the service in a friendly and appropriate way. People appeared relaxed and were able to make choices about the way they received care and support.