The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Oaklodge Nursing Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

2 Silverdale Road, Burgess Hill, West Sussex, RH15 0EF (01444) 243788

Provided and run by:
Dr Dhananjay Dalmond

All Inspections

26 February 2018

During a routine inspection

Oaklodge Nursing Home is a 'care home.' People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Oaklodge Nursing Home is a nursing home providing care and support for up to 25 people who have nursing needs, including poor mobility, diabetes, those living with various stages of dementia and end of life care. The inspection took place on 26 February 2018 and was unannounced. On the day of the inspection 20 people were living at the home. The manager of the home was in the process of applying to become the 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.

At our last inspection we rated the service as good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good. However we did find some areas that needed to improve. Not all records of care were clear and accurate. Incidents and accidents were recorded, however, inconsistencies in recording meant the description of events was not always clear. This was identified as an area of practice that needed to improve.

People and their relatives spoke highly of the staff and said they felt safe living at the home. Risks to people were identified, assessed and managed. Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe. People received their medicines safely and there were effective infection prevention and control measures in place. There were enough suitable staff on duty to care for people. One person said, “They come quickly when I ring the bell.”

Staff understood their responsibilities with regard to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. 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. People told us their views were listened to.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink and spoke highly of the food on offer. One person said, “The food is nice and you get options. If you don’t like something there is an alternative.” People were supported to access the health care services they needed. A healthcare professional spoke highly of the staff, saying, “I trust their judgement, they recognise when people are unwell and always follow my instructions. I trust the staff and value their expertise.”

Staff demonstrated that they knew people well and positive relationships had developed. One relative said, “The staff are absolutely wonderful and always try their upmost.” Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity. People told us staff were kind and caring.

People and their relatives had been involved in developing care plans which were comprehensive. Staff had the information they needed to provide care in a personalised way. People and their relatives were involved in planning for end of life care. Staff recognised and responded to changes in people’s needs. People were supported to follow their individual interests as well as having organised activities.

People knew how to complain and were confident that their concerns would be responded to. People, their relatives and staff spoke highly of the management of the home. There were robust systems and processes in place to monitor and evaluate the care provided. There were clear governance arrangements with effective management oversight to identify shortfalls and drive improvements. Staff had developed positive connections with local organisations and described effective working relationships.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

10 August 2015

During a routine inspection

We inspected Oaklodge Nursing Home on the 10 August 2015. Oaklodge Nursing Home is a nursing home providing care and support for up to 25 people who have nursing needs, including poor mobility, diabetes, those living with various stages of dementia and end of life care. On the day of the inspection 20 people were living at the home. The age range of people varied from 60 – 100 years old.

Accommodation was arranged over three floors with stairs connecting all floors and a lift. Centrally located in Burgess Hill, the home had good access to local shops and the train station. Many people had been living at Oaklodge Nursing Home for many years and spoke positively about living at the home. One person told us, “It’s lovely here.”

The provider was in day to day charge. The provider therefore had legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Staff members understood the principles of consent and people confirmed they always provided permission before receiving care. However, Mental Capacity Assessments were not completed in line with legal requirements. They were not decision specific and did not record the steps taken on how the decision of capacity was reached. We have therefore identified this as an area of practice that needs improvement.

Where people had bed rails in place, documentation did not confirm if they consented to the bed rails or if they were implemented in their best interest to keep them safe. We have identified this as an area of practice that needs improvement.

Further consideration was needed to making the lunchtime experience a sociable and enjoyable experience for people within the constraints of people’s health and mobility needs. We have identified this as an area of practice that needs improvement.

People told us felt safe and that staff treated them well. There were enough staff on duty and deployed throughout the home to meet people’s care and support needs. Safeguarding adult’s procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they supported. There was a whistle-blowing procedure available and staff said they would use it if they needed to. Appropriate recruitment checks took place before staff started work.

The management team promoted a positive culture within the home that was transparent and inclusive. The provider and deputy manager had robust systems to continuously check the quality of the service provided. Staff felt valued and were encouraged to contribute any ideas they may have for improving the service.

Staff members understood their roles and responsibilities and were supported by the deputy manager to maintain and develop their skills and knowledge. People enjoyed a varied healthy diet and their health needs were well catered for. The atmosphere in the home was welcoming and there was a warm interaction between the staff and people.

People’s medicines were managed safely. Medicines were managed, stored and disposed of safely. Nursing staff administered medicines and had been appropriately trained and confirmed they understood the importance of safe administration and management of medicines.

From observing staff interact with people, it was clear staff had spent considerable time with people, getting to know them, gaining an understanding of their personal history and building friendships with them.

People who lived at the home and their relatives were encouraged to share their opinions about the quality of the home to make sure improvements were made when needed.

12 November 2013

During a routine inspection

There were 20 people living in the care home when we visited and we spoke with eight of them and two relatives. We also spoke with six members of staff including a nurse on duty and a physiotherapist who was visiting when we were. Both of the relatives we spoke with told us how pleased they were with the care home and that they were confident their relatives were in 'good, safe hands'. One relative said that the staff 'were genuinely interested in the people living in the home and it was not just a job'.

Another relative said it was 'such a lovely place', the atmosphere was friendly and warm and 'they will not allow crying here!' The relative said that the staff were so attentive and would do everything they could to help if anyone was upset or feeling a little low. Relatives said that they appreciated the extra things that the staff did, such as, 'noticing when someone was in need of a chat or some company'.

We observed the people living in the home having their lunch and the staff supporting them with their meals and drinks. One person pointed to a member of staff and said 'she has the patience of a saint and I don't know how they do it'. All the people we spoke with were appreciative of the staff and the friendly, warm, relaxed atmosphere of the home. The relatives said that the care home was clean and even though it was not 'purpose built' it was 'bright and cheerful and always smelt fresh as they came in the door.'

We saw that people had their own rooms where they could spend time or they could join others in the sitting room. Staff respected the privacy and dignity of people and we saw them knocking on doors and asking before helping at mealtimes. We found evidence of high standards of care and welfare, a choice of nutritious food and a process of continual assessment to monitor the quality of service provision.

19 February 2013

During a routine inspection

We saw staff interacting with people used the service, listening to them and responding to them in a polite and courteous way, ensuring that they given time to ask questions and respond at their own pace. We also saw that staff supported and gently encouraged people to eat and drink at their own pace. One person who used the service told us that "The food was very good, we get choices at all meal times."

People's needs were assessed and peoples likes and dislikes were identified including, the time they like to get up and go to bed, what they like to eat and drink.

Staff we spoke to told us that they received regular supervision, one person said "The management team are very supportive" We saw that staff received regular training and updates.

We saw the provider regularly assesses and monitors the quality of the service to protect people who used the service from the risk of inappropriate or unsafe care and treatment. Regular audits are carried out reviewing the key areas such as care plans, risk asessment, medication, accidents, incidents, compliments and complaints, fire safety and the building environment. Any areas for improvement are identified and the appropriate action to address any concerns and identify areas of good practice.

We saw the outcomes of the previous years survey which was very positive. One person commented "they were highly appreciative of the care their relative had received."