Oxford Respite Service

Updated 14 June 2018

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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 25 April 2018 and was announced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector and an expert by experience who made phone calls to relatives of people who used the service to seek their feedback. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. We gave the service prior notice because the location provides a small respite service and people are not in the building during the day. We needed to make sure someone would be in the office.

Before the inspection the service we reviewed the information we held about the service, including notifications of any accidents or incidents. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the registered provider is legally obliged to send us within required timescales. The provider was in the process of completing the Provider Information Return (PIR) at the time of the 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. As we undertook the inspection before the PIR was due to be returned we did not require its submission.

During our inspection we used different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. These methods included informal observations throughout our inspection. Our observations enabled us to see how staff interacted with people and see how care was provided. We spoke with two people using the service and spoke over the telephone with seven relatives.

We spoke with the registered manager, the area manager, the care co-ordinator and three support staff. We also sought feedback from 12 community professionals and received responses from four. We looked at four people's support plans and medication administration records. We also looked at three staff training and supervision records. We saw a number of other documents relating to the management of the service. For example, the fire risk assessment, quality audit reports and staff meeting minutes.

Updated 14 June 2018

This inspection took place on 25 April 2018 and was announced. We gave the service prior notice because the location provides a small respite service and people are not always in the building during the day. We needed to make sure someone would be in the office. There were four people using the service on the day of the inspection.

This was the first inspection of Oxford Respite Service since Brandon Trust registered the service with the Care Quality Commission in June 2017. The service is registered as a care home without nursing and provides short term breaks for up to five adults at any one time with a learning disability and/or Autistic Spectrum Disorder. The degree of learning disability varies from mild to profound. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen. Registering the Right Support CQC policy.

The service had a 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.

A concern was raised about the suitability of the windows and security. We have made a recommendation about seeking suitable advice to ensure this potential risk is minimised.

Because of people’s complex needs we were not able to gain verbal views from everyone in the service on the day of the inspection about their experiences of visiting Oxford Respite Service. We therefore observed staff interaction and people’s responses throughout the day. We also contacted relatives by telephone who spoke positively about the standard of care and support their family member received.

Staff were aware of safeguarding procedures and knew what to do if an allegation was made or they suspected abuse. We found systems were in place to make sure people received their medicines safely. Staff recruitment procedures ensured people's safety was promoted.

There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs safely and effectively. The service followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Code of practice and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The registered provider's policies and systems supported this practice. People enjoyed the food provided and were supported to receive the right food and drink to remain healthy.

People were treated with dignity and respect and their privacy was protected. Relatives we spoke with made positive comments about the care provided by staff.

Staff were receiving regular training and supervision so they were skilled and competent to carry out their role.

We found people's support plans and risk assessments were reviewed regularly and in response to any change in needs.

Staff knew the people they were supporting and provided a personalised service. Support plans were in place detailing how people wished to be supported. People receiving support, or their relative were involved in making decisions about their care. We saw people participated in a range of daily activities.

There was a comprehensive complaints policy and procedure. This was clearly displayed in the home and in the statement of purpose. Relatives said they could speak with staff if they had any worries or concerns and they would be listened to and action would be taken to address any concerns they had voiced.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. Regular checks and audits were undertaken to make sure full and safe procedures were adhered to.

Staff told us they felt they had a very good team. Staff and relatives said the registered manager was approachable and communication was good within the service.

The service had up to date policies and procedures which reflected current legislation and good practice guidance.

Safety and maintenance checks for the premises and equipment were in place and up to date.