Archived: Oakdene Nursing Home

Oakdene Nursing Home is registered to provide accommodation for up to 37 older people some of whom are living with dementia or have needs associated with mental health. People may have a physical disability and/or a sensory impairment. There were 32 people living at the service when we inspected and the registered manager told us that this would be the maximum they would admit given recent changes to the layout of rooms. An application to the Care Quality Commission to reduce the maximum number of people the service could accommodate was pending. The service had several communal areas including a garden room. It had a lift, and was fully accessible to wheelchairs. It had specialist equipment to assist people with mobility problems and was close to local transport links.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

Medicines were safely handled and risks were well assessed to protect people.

Staff were able to tell us what they would do to ensure people were safe and people told us they felt safe at the service. The registered provider had sufficient suitable staff to care for people and staff were safely recruited. Monitoring checks for the environments were carried out and the registered manager told us about how they managed environmental risks. People were protected by the infection control procedures in the service.

Staff had received training to ensure that people received care appropriate for their needs. Training was up to date across a range of relevant areas.

Staff had received up to date training in Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff understood that people should be consulted about their care and they understood the principles of the MCA and DoLs. People were protected around their mental capacity.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met. People enjoyed the meals. Specialist advice around people’s health care was sought and followed.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. We saw staff had a good rapport with people whilst treating them with dignity and respect. Staff had knowledge and understanding of people’s needs and worked together well as a team. Care plans provided detailed information about people’s individual needs and preferences. Records and observations provided evidence that people were treated in a way which encouraged them to feel valued and cared about.

People were supported to engage in daily activities they enjoyed and which were in line with their preferences and interests. Staff were responsive to people’s wishes and understood people’s personal histories and social networks so that they could support them in the way they preferred. Care plans were kept up to date when needs changed, and people were given opportunities to take part in drawing up their care plans, their reviews and to give their views which were acted upon.

People told us their complaints were responded to and the results of complaint investigations were clearly recorded. Everyone we spoke with told us that if they had concerns they were addressed by the registered manager who responded quickly.

The registered provider had an effective quality assurance system in place. Oakdene Nursing Home was well managed and staff were well supported in their role. The registered manager had a clear understanding of their role. They consulted appropriately with people who lived at the service, people who were important to them, staff and health care professionals, in order to identify required improvements and put these in place. Records around good governance were clear and accurate and led to planned improvements.

The inspection was undertaken by one inspector. This summary addresses five key questions: is the service safe; is the service effective; is the service caring; is the service responsive and is the service well led?

This summary is based on a visit to the home where we spoke with the manager and observed staff interactions with people using the service. We looked at records and talked in private with two visiting relatives, three people using the service, four members of staff and two visiting professionals.

The full report contains the evidence to support this summary.

Is the service safe?

Overall the people we spoke with at the inspection visit were positive about the care provided by the home and told us that they felt safe. Visitors also told us they thought their relatives were safe. Similarly staff who we spoke with told us they believed people using the service were protected from abuse or exploitation. Staff also told us they understood their responsibility to act against poor practice if they became aware of any.

We had a quick tour of the building. This included communal areas and a small selection of people's bedrooms. No obvious hazards to people's health and safety were seen. Staff were provided with disposable gloves and aprons to help minimise the risk of cross infection.

People were provided with ample food and drink. Kitchen staff maintained hygiene and safety records. These checks and records helped to ensure that food was stored, and meals prepared safely.

Medication was stored securely and administered by staff who were competent to do so.

Is the service effective?

Each individual's care needs were assessed and reviewed. A care plan was developed on the basis of the assessment and updated if necessary. Staff understood the needs of the individuals living at the home.

People who used the service and, where appropriate, their relatives, were involved in discussion about their needs and the best way to meet identified needs. One person using the service described the care staff as 'very conscientious'.

A visiting health care professional described good practice in the home. They also told us the staff worked well to support any identified treatment plans.

Is the service caring?

People we spoke with during the inspection visit were complimentary about the approach and attitude of the staff. Comments included: 'staff are friendly and open'; '[staff are] nice and caring'; 'very thoughtful and very kind'; '[staff] couldn't be nicer'. When asked what the best thing about the home was, one person said 'easy going. They are there to help'.

One visitor said the home being 'very caring' was amongst the best things about it. Another visitor told us staff were 'very kind to everyone'.

Interactions between staff and people using the service were observed to be relaxed, caring and supportive.

Is the service responsive?

We did not look specifically at the service's complaints procedure. However, people using the service and visitors who we asked during our visit said they believed they would be listened to if they had a complaint.

The management team undertook a range of audits to help maintain standards and identify where any improvements could be made. This included an annual survey of people using the service and their relatives.

One member of staff said 'they [managers] listen because they want the best for the home and the residents'

Is the service well led?

The home was described by several people we talked to as 'a family run business'. As such the owners were in frequent contact with the staff and people using the service. There were regular, structured, meetings between the managers and the service providers which would help to ensure clarity of leadership.

Comments about the managers from the staff included 'easy to approach', 'supportive and approachable' and '[there is a] good atmosphere between staff and management'.

Records were easily accessible and presented as well maintained.

People told us that they were treated with respect and had their dignity maintained. Comments included "everybody's very kind and helpful and I'm very happy here" and there was always a "nice atmosphere".

Staff had a good understanding of the care needs of each individual living at the home. People were able to participate in discussion and decision-making in connection with their care needs.

People told us they felt safe living at Oakdene. Staff were aware of their responsibilities to remain vigilant and to take action if they had any concerns about the safety or well being of the people using the service.

There were enough suitably skilled members of staff to provide the required level of service to the people living at the home. The people using the service valued the attitude of the staff members. Comments included "all the staff are so lovely"; "[you are] waited on hand and foot" and "everybody's very kind and helpful and I'm very happy here".

Although there were no formal complaints recorded there was an appropriate policy and procedure to help ensure people could raise a complaint if they wished. People using the service told us they were confident that if they did have a complaint it would be listened to and dealt with appropriately.