Oaklands Littlehampton Limited

Updated 13 November 2020

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 is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are conducting a thematic review of infection control and prevention measures in care homes.

The service was selected to take part in this thematic review which is seeking to identify examples of good practice in infection prevention and control.

This inspection took place on 29 October 2020 and was announced.

Updated 13 November 2020

Oaklands Littlehampton Limited (also known as Oakland Grange) is a residential care home for up to 42 older people with a range of health care needs, including people living with dementia. At the time of our inspection, 37 people were living at the home. All rooms had en-suite facilities and accommodation was easily accessed from two lifts. Communal areas included a dining room with adjacent conservatory, a smaller sitting room and a quiet lounge. Landscaped gardens were easily accessed from the conservatory.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection, we found the service remained Good.

People received safe care and treatment at Oaklands Littlehampton Limited, from trained staff who knew how to recognise the signs of potential abuse and what action to take. Risks to people were identified, assessed and managed to mitigate risks. Care plans provided detailed information and guidance for staff in relation to managing people’s risks. Staffing levels were sufficient to keep people safe and meet their needs. Robust recruitment systems were in place for new staff. Medicines were managed safely.

Staff had been trained in a range of areas considered mandatory to undertake their roles and responsibilities. They had supervision meetings with their line managers and attended staff meetings. 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 support this practice. The food on offer was nutritious and people had a choice from a varied menu. Special diets were catered for. People had access to a range of healthcare professionals and services.

Staff were kind and caring of people and positive relationships had been developed. People spoke highly of the staff who looked after them. People were encouraged to be involved in making decisions about their care and their likes and dislikes were known by staff. People were treated with dignity and respect and had the privacy they needed.

Care plans were personalised and provided detailed information and guidance for staff on how to meet people’s needs. People and their relatives were involved in reviewing their care plans. Some people were involved in a digital health project that monitored their particular medical condition. A range of activities was on offer if people chose to participate in these. Outings into the community were organised. Complaints were listened to and dealt with satisfactorily.

People were involved in developing the service and their views were listened to through surveys and attendance at residents’ meetings. Relatives were also asked for their feedback. The home was well managed and people and staff spoke highly of the registered manager. Staff were asked for their feedback through a survey and felt supported by management. The Chief Executive of the provider visited the home daily. An effective system of audits was in place to monitor and measure the quality of care delivered and service overall.

Further information is in the findings below.