Archived: Oakmead

At the time of our inspection there were five people living in the home. There was a registered manager in post. 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.

The inspection took place on the 18 and 19 November 2015. The inspection was unannounced. We spoke with two people living at the home, two relatives and eight staff which included the registered manager.

Systems were in place to promote safe medicine practices. Some aspects of recording of medicines required improvements. Clear protocols and guidance were not in place to ensure staff who did not have up to date training in the administration of emergency medicines knew what action to take.

Risks to people, staff and visitors were generally identified, addressed and managed. Staff were aware of risks to people and what actions they needed to take to manage the risks. We saw one person was wearing slippers that were too big and put them at risk of falls. Another person did not have a risk assessment in place to manage the risk of pressure sores. The registered manager was liaising with other professionals for their input into that. We made a recommendation that risk assessments should be completed when a risk is identified. The home was clean, well maintained and systems were in place to prevent the risk of cross infection. Accident and incidents were appropriately managed which promoted people’s safety.

People and relatives told us they were happy with the care provided. Relatives described the staff as wonderful, fantastic and excellent. One relative told us they could not fault staff and described how they supported their relative and them during a recent hospital admission. They commented “They could not thank them enough for what they did”.

People were assessed prior to admission to the home. Staff were knowledgeable about the care plans that were in place, which outlined the care and support people required. People’s health needs were met. Staff were caring and had a positive and enabling relationship with people. People’s independence and development of life skills were promoted.

Staff were suitably recruited, inducted, trained and supported to meet people’s needs. They were aware of people’s communication needs and this was being developed. People were supported to make choices and decisions on their care. They had access to a range of activities and community involvement was promoted. Systems were in place to enable people and their relatives to raise concerns and complaints and staff were aware of their responsibility and procedure for dealing with complaints.

The provider had systems in place to satisfy themselves that the home was being effectively managed and monitored. People, relatives and staff were happy with the way the home was run. They were positive about the recent changes in management. Staff described the management team as proactive, dynamic, supportive, empowering and they promoted staff’s learning and development.

We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

We considered the evidence the provider submitted for the outcome we reviewed. We used this information to answer the question: Is the service well led?

We assessed quality monitoring had taken place and systems were in place to ensure the service was being effectively monitored and managed. This demonstrated the service was well-led.

Care plans and risk assessments were in place which ensured people received safe and consistent care. The home was clean and well maintained which ensured people were supported in a safe, comfortable environment.

We spoke with the manager and four care staff. Staff told us they were inducted, trained, supported and supervised in their roles. However records indicated some updates in training were overdue and supervisions were not happening in line with the organisations charter on one to one's.

Some quality monitoring systems were in place. However these needed to be developed to enable the provider to be confident the service was being effectively monitored.

People commented that they felt safe living at the home. They knew who to talk to if they had any concerns.They said there had not always been enough staff to take them out on activities. They told us staff were supportive. One person commented that "staff were kind, caring and good at their jobs".

People told us the home was kept clean and staff supported them to keep their bedrooms clean. They confirmed they were asked what they thought of the home and asked what could be improved.