Oakleigh Residential Home Limited

Oakleigh Residential Home is a residential home providing personal care to 23 people, some with physical health needs and others with Dementia. The care home supports people in an adapted residential property.

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

Some of the door locks in the home could prevent people’s swift exit in an emergency. We recommended improvements on bedroom door locks and infection control.

Risks had been assessed prior to people moving into the home and infection control practices were adequate. Medicines were stored and administered safely, people were supported to have their medicines in a safe way. Recruitment checks had been carried out to ensure staff were suitable to work with people. Staffing levels were adequate to provide individual support and good overall levels of care.

Training for staff was linked to people’s individual support needs, however, some training courses had yet to be planned and undertaken. We recommended improvements to training records.

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. The staff team felt involved in the running of the home and felt supported by the provider, registered manager and senior staff. Staff had supervision to ensure they met people’s needs. Staff responded to and supported people’s health and care needs.

People were provided with a varied diet which met their individual cultural needs. Healthcare was supported by the staff and people were provided with treatment following consultations.

People were fully involved in making decisions about their care and their consent was obtained prior to offering care. People were supported by a staff team who were kind and caring and treated them in a considerate and respectful manner. Staff promoted people’s privacy and dignity.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s individual needs, informed by well detailed care and support plans. There was a complaints process in place which was managed effectively. People had complimented the staff on the care provided. Staff had considered people’s end of life choices and made reference to this in care plans.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service being provided. People’s views of the service were sought through regular meetings and surveys. The registered manager understood their roles and responsibilities as a registered person. They worked in partnership with other agencies to ensure people received care and support that was consistent with their assessed needs.

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

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on our previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Oakleigh Residential Home Limited provides accommodation and care for up to 23 people who are aged over 65 and why may also have a physical disability or be living with dementia. The home is located on two floors with lift access. The home has a communal lounge, a conservatory, a large garden and a dining room where people could spend time together. At the time of inspection there were 23 people using the service.

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.

People were protected from the risk of harm at the service because staff knew their responsibilities to keep people safe from avoidable harm and abuse. Staff knew how to report any concerns that they had about people’s welfare.

There were effective systems in place to manage risks and this helped staff to know how to support people safely. Where risks had been identified, control measures were in place.

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs safely. The provider had safe recruitment practices. This assured them that staff had been checked for their suitability before they started their employment.

People’s equipment was regularly checked and there were plans to keep people safe during significant events such as a fire. The building was maintained and kept in a safe condition. Evacuation plans had been written for each person, to help support them safely in the event of an emergency.

People’s medicines were handled safely and were offered to them in accordance with their prescriptions. Staff had been trained to administer medicines and had been assessed for their competency to do this.

Staff received appropriate support through an induction, support and guidance. There was an on-going training programme to ensure staff had the skills and up to date knowledge to meet people’s needs.

People received sufficient to eat and drink. Their health needs were met. This was because staff supported them to access health care professionals promptly. Staff also worked with other professionals to monitor and meet people’s needs and support them to remain well.

People were supported to make their own decisions. Staff and managers had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. We found that assessments of mental capacity had been completed where there were concerns about people's ability to make decisions for themselves. Staff told us, and we saw, that they sought people’s consent before delivering their support.

People were involved in decisions about their support. They told us that staff treated them with respect. Staff knew the people they cared for and treated them with kindness and compassion.

People received care and support that was responsive to their needs and preferences. Care plans provided information about people so staff knew what they liked and enjoyed. People were encouraged to maintain and develop their independence. People took part in activities. However, some people felt that they would like more activities, or more variety.

People and their relatives knew how to make a complaint. The provider had a complaints policy in place that was available for people and their relatives.

People and staff felt the service was well managed. Staff felt supported by the registered manager.

Systems were in place which assessed and monitored the quality of the service and identified areas for improvement. People were asked for feedback on the quality of the service that they received. The service was led by a registered manager who understood their responsibilities under the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009.

Oakleigh Residential Home is a care home registered to accommodate up to 23 people who are aged over 65 and who may also have a physical disability or be living with dementia. The home is located on two floors, with lift access to both floors. The home has a variety of communal rooms and areas where people can relax. At the time of the inspection 23 people were using the service.

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.’

People told us that they felt safe when staff supported them and that they enjoyed living at Oakleigh Residential Home.

Risk assessments were in place which set out how to support people in a safe manner. The service had safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures in place. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in these areas.

The provider carried out recruitment checks before staff started to work at the service.

People received their medicines safely and at the right time. Staff had not always signed to say that medicine had been administered. Medicine audits were completed but these did not cover all areas such as disposal, storage and administration of medicines.

Staff were supported through training and supervision to be able to meet the needs of the people who used the service. They undertook an induction programme when they started to work at the service.

Staff had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We saw that some assessments had been completed to see if someone had capacity to make decisions about their lives however these had not been completed consistently.

People were supported to maintain a balanced diet. We found that referrals to dieticians had not always been completed when someone had trouble with eating. People were generally supported to access healthcare services.

People told us that staff were caring. Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of how to promote people’s dignity. Staff understood people’s needs and preferences.

People were involved in decisions about their care. They told us that staff treated them with respect.

People were involved in the assessment of their needs. They were not always involved in the review of their needs.

People were supported to take part in activities that were of interest to them.

People told us they knew how to make a complaint. The service had a complaints procedure in place.

The service was well organised and led by a registered manager who understood their responsibilities under the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009.

People were asked for their feedback on the service that they received. The provider carried out monitoring of the quality of the service.

We spoke with three relatives. One relative told us 'It has been a long time since we have seen our relative so relaxed and smiling. We can have nothing but praise for all the staff who work at the home'.

We observed people enjoying their meal at lunch time and again at tea time. Each person who spoke with us told us they liked their bedrooms. One person told us they were able to make it nicer by adding their own items to their bedroom. They added the domestic staff helped to clean their rooms and the care workers helped them to keep if tidy. There were some areas of the building where the provider would need to ensure people's continued safety needs were being met. This included areas such as fire safety and in infection control.

Staff told us they received training for their role on starting with the service. They were able to describe the type of training they had received.

One person using the service told us they had 'no worries about the care workers who provided for their care needs'.

People told us they were aware of records being kept about them and expressed no concerns in this area.

People gave us positive reports about the caring qualities of the staff and that they were supported by them. The home's manager and staff confirmed they provided cover when it was needed to limit the impact of any staff shortages when staff fell ill. A family member described how helpful everybody was and told us that they were confident that their relative was well cared for and seemed to have settled in to life at the home well.

We observed there were people with different levels of independence. They told us they were encouraged by staff to continue doing things for themselves where it was safe. They also expressed their views about being involved in choosing how to live at the home and were encouraged to express themselves.

People that we spoke to expressed satisfaction with the physical standards of the home and that it was always well lit, warm, and comfortable to live in.

People living at the home said that they were confident that if they had any problems they would talk with staff and would see the manager. They were confident they would be listened to; nobody had made any formal expressions of complaint and described a very open style of management that was there to help them as much as possible.