Archived: Sussex Oakleaf Housing Association Limited - 26 Shakespeare Road

Updated 3 April 2019

The inspection: We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team: The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type: The service is a care home which provides personal care and accommodation for up to eight people.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection: The inspection was unannounced.

What we did: Before the inspection we checked information that we held about the service provider. This included information from other agencies and statutory notifications sent to us by the registered manager about events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law. We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection we spoke to five people who lived at the home. We spent time observing people and staff together in different parts of the home. We spoke with two staff, which included the assistant manager. We spoke with the registered manager and the provider’s Head of Residential Care and Housing who is the provider’s nominated individual. We also had contact with the local authority commissioning team who gave us feedback on the service.

We looked at the following records:

• care plans and associated records for three people

• records of medicines administered to people

• the provider’s internal checks and audits

• training records, supervision and recruitment records for staff

• staff rotas

• accidents and incidents reports

• records relating to the health and safety of the premises

• policies and procedures.

Updated 3 April 2019

About the service.

Sussex Oakleaf Housing Association Limited - 26 Shakespeare Road is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to eight people with mental health needs. At the time of the inspection there were seven people living at the home.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.

At the last inspection the service was rated as Good. The inspection report was published on 13 August 2016. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

People’s experience of using this service:

• People and their relatives said the staff provided a good standard of care. For example, a relative told us, “The quality of staff is terrific. They look after people really well.” People said they liked the staff and described them as both friendly and respectful. People said they were consulted about their care. Each person had their own bedroom with an en-suite bathroom and three of these also had a kitchen area. People said they liked their living space, which staff helped them to keep clean and tidy.

• The provider had plans to close the service by the end of June 2019 as part of a planned change to its service structure. At the time of the inspection the provider had not yet submitted an application to remove the location from CQC’s registration. Staff were working with social services’ funding authorities, relatives and people themselves to secure new accommodation which met people’s wishes.

• We observed staff were skilled in communicating with people effectively. People were supported by staff who were kind and attentive. Staff demonstrated they promoted values of independence and choice for people.

• People said there was a choice of food at each meal. We observed people helping themselves to breakfast. People helped prepare meals for the residents. People confirmed there were a range of activities, which they could choose to take part in.

• Staff were well trained and supervised. Staff said they felt supported and worked well as a team.

• The home was homely and comfortable. Carpets in communal areas were stained and worn and in need of replacement. Some areas of the home were showing signs of wear and tear. The provider was aware of this but was not implementing any plans to address this due to the imminent closure of the home.

• The service was well managed and there was a culture of valuing and involving people and staff in decision making. A range of audits were used to monitor the quality and safety of the services provided. People said the staff and management were approachable. Residents’ meetings were held on a regular basis where agenda items included discussions about the home and food. Surveys were also used to monitor the views of people and relatives.

Follow up: We will review the service in line with our methodology for ‘Good’ services.