Archived: Oakhurst - Wheatsheaf House

This service had not been inspected previously.

Oakhurst is located on the outskirts of a village near Congleton. The home is registered to accommodate four young people who have a history of mental health needs. The support workers based in the home work alongside clinicians including clinical psychiatrists and psychologists based at the providers head office to provide support and therapeutic intervention to the young people. The accommodation consists of four single bedrooms, set over three floors, one of which is en-suite. There are two additional bathrooms. Access between the floors is via staircases. There is a communal lounge and kitchen area and a private space in the basement where many meetings take place. There is also a small private garden. On the day of our inspection there was one person living in the home and one person continued to receive support from the service but they were now living in the community.

There was no registered manager at Oakhurst. The current manager had been in post since July 2016 and had completed all the relevant forms for registering as the manager with the Care Quality Commission. 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 this inspection we identified a breach of the relevant regulations in respect of the need for appropriate training. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

We asked staff members about training and they all confirmed that they received regular training throughout the year and that it was up to date. However we found in one instance a member of staff had not completed core training and was lone working. We also found that in some cases core training as identified by the provider had not been updated.

We found management were conducting a number of internal audits of the systems and processes and they were taking corrective action to address any issues or improvements identified. Everyone spoke highly of the new manager and the impact that they had had on the service since being in post. The audits had failed to pick up on the issues identified in this inspection, therefore the provider was not meeting the standards set out in the regulations.

We found that people were provided with care that was person centred, sensitive and compassionate. Staff supported people to maintain independence and there was an emphasis on everyone being involved in their care in order to move onto independent living. Support was provided to both people living in the home and the staff by a clinical team who provided therapeutic sessions with young people and guidance to staff on how to support the young people.

People using the service told us they felt safe. The service had a safeguarding policy in place and staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities to report any incidents of abuse.

The systems and processes for administering and storing medication were safe. Medicines were administered by staff who had received sufficient training and underwent competency checks. Daily stock checks were undertaken to identify any medication discrepancies.

The provider had a range of policies and procedures which included guidance on the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and staff and management were clear on the processes to be followed when someone lacked mental capacity.

We found that the staff team were very caring and knew the residents very well. We saw care being carried out in a dignified and respectful manner.