Archived: Oakleigh House

Updated 15 March 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked 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 was an unannounced inspection that took place on 9 February 2016. This inspection was carried out by one inspector and an Expert by Experience which is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. They did not return the PIR, which we took into account when we made the judgements in this report. We also considered notifications made to us by the provider, any safeguarding alerts raised regarding people living at the service, and information we held on our database about the service and provider.

There were five people living at the service. During our visit we spoke with four people, two staff, and the manager. We were shown around the service, observed the support provided to people in communal areas of the service, and checked records relating to the management of the service such as staffing rosters and recruitment records. We also looked at the care and support files of three people using the service.

Updated 15 March 2016

This unannounced inspection took place on 9 February 2016. Our previous inspection, of July 2014, found that the service had addressed concerns with the management of medicines that we found at the previous inspection.

Oakleigh House is a care home for up to five people that specialises in the care and support of people with mental health conditions. There were no vacancies when we inspected.

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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager was not present at the inspection, but an additional manager was carrying out the day to day running of the service.

People told us that staff provided a very supportive service that was focussed on their needs, and that they liked living at the service. People chose and joined in with a range of recreational and educational activities.

However, we found that the care and support reviewing process and other care documents relating to people contained occasional inaccuracies and omissions. This meant the reviewing process was not fully responsive to people’s particular needs and preferences.

The service did not consistently work in line with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, although it was evident that efforts were made to do so.

We found that people were well supported with health and nutritional needs. This matched feedback we received from people using the service and healthcare professionals. With the support of community healthcare professionals, the service had improved people’s quality of life.

People lived in a safe and risk-assessed environment. The service had systems for protecting people from abuse, and for managing people’s medicines safely.

The service had an adequate staff recruitment procedure and there were enough staff working at the service. There was a consistency of staffing, which helped people’s needs and preferences to be well-known. This enabled positive, caring relationships to develop.

People felt valued and respected as individuals, and were involved in decision-making about their care and support. Care was centred on people’s individual needs.

The service had a positive culture that was focussed on the development of people using the service and supporting staff. Staff received sufficient training and supervision for their work of supporting people.

Any concerns with how the service operated were discussed and addressed, and so people had confidence in the service’s complaints procedure.

The service used a range of quality-auditing approaches to review and improve on service quality, and so was well-managed overall.

We found one breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we have told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.