Oaktree Court

Updated 1 April 2020

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

This inspection was carried out by one inspector and a medicines inspector, along with an expert by experience on the first day. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The second day was carried by one inspector.

Service and service type

Oaktree Court 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.

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

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

We looked at the information we held about the service including safeguarding records, complaints, and statutory notifications. Notifications are information about specific important events the service is legally required to send to us. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

The provider was not asked to complete a provider information return prior to this inspection. This is information we require providers to send us to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We took this into account when we inspected the service and made the judgements in this report.

During the inspection-

We spoke with 11 people, five relatives, 15 care staff, nursing staff, the registered manager and deputy manager and the company’s representatives. We also spoke with four visiting professionals. We looked at the personal care and support plans for six people and at people’s medicine records. We also looked at two staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of other records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

After the inspection –

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We looked at training data and quality assurance records. We contacted five professionals who regularly visit the service; we received feedback from two.

Updated 1 April 2020

About the service

Oaktree Court is a care home, registered to provide accommodation for 56 older people who require nursing and personal care. The home has a specialist unit for people living with dementia called the Somerset Suite. At the time of the inspection there were 47 people living at the service.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People described a happy, relaxed service, where they felt safe, well cared and respected by all staff. One person said, “This is my home for life now and I am very happy here”; another said, “I couldn’t fault anything here. We are safe and well cared for. It is a happy place”.

People received exceptionally personalised and responsive care. The attention to people’s individual wishes and needs showed the service had developed a highly person-centred approach.

The provider’s ethos was to provide opportunities for people to live life to the full, and this was evident during the inspection. People were supported to pursue their hobbies and explore new experiences. People had a varied and interesting programme of activities, ensuring they were meaningfully occupied and stimulated. People living with dementia were supported in an environment which was dementia friendly, interactive and safe and secure without limiting their freedom. The provider used best practice research when developing the environment and activities.

People were at the centre of planning their care. They confirmed routines were flexible and they were free to choose how they spent their time. End of life care plans were in place and the service worked with other agencies to meet people’s needs at the end of their lives.

Risks relating to people’s individual needs and the environment were identified and planned for. Staff understood how to keep people safe and knew how to respond if any concerns were raised about people’s well-being or safety. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Staff were recruited in a safe way to protect people. The service was clean throughout and staff took precautions to minimise the risk of infection. Accidents and incidents were investigated and reviewed to mitigate further occurrences. Medicines were managed in a safe way.

People’s needs were assessed before they moved to the service to ensure those needs could be

met. Staff received training and supervision to support them in carrying out their role effectively. The design and layout of the building was suitable for the people using it. People enjoyed the food and mealtimes were sociable occasions. The service worked with other agencies and professionals to support people’s health care needs.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff were kind and caring and treated people with respect. Staff had a good understanding of

how to promote people’s privacy, dignity and independence. The provider sought to meet people’s needs in relation to equality and diversity.

The registered manager and deputy manager had made significant improvements at the service. Feedback from professionals was positive about their leadership. They confirmed the management team worked in a transparent and open way and were focused on continual improvement and active working partnerships that met people’s needs. The service worked with other professionals and agencies ensure people’s needs were met and to help develop best practice.

Quality assurance and monitoring systems were in place to help drive improvements at the service. People knew how to raise concerns and felt confident the management team would address and rectify any problems.

Rating at last inspection -

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 18 February 2019).

At this inspection we found improvements had been made.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk