Mile Oak Rest Home

Updated 6 July 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.

The inspection took place on 19 May 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Before the inspection we reviewed all the information we held about the service. This included notifications the home had sent us. A notification is the means by which providers tell us important information that affects the running of the service and the care people receive. We contacted the local authority to obtain their views about the service.

We had requested and received a Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed this information prior to the inspection.

During the inspection we spoke with eight people who used the service and four relatives. We also spoke with four members of staff and the registered manager. We gathered feedback from three professoionals who had knowledge about the service. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experiences of people who could not talk with us.

We looked at a range of records during the inspection, these included five care records. We also looked at information relating to the management of the service including quality assurance audits, health and safety records, policies, risk assessments and meeting minutes. We looked at three staff files, the recruitment process, training and supervision records.

Updated 6 July 2018

Mile Oak Rest Home is a residential care home for up to 20 older people. The building offers accommodation over two floors with lift access to the first floor. People have access to communal lounge and dining areas, a conservatory and accessible garden. There were 19 people living at the home at the time of inspection.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

People and relatives told us, without exception, that staff were extremely kind and that they could not wish to live at a better home. We were given several examples of the difference that the support from Mile Oak had made to people who lived there and everyone spoke with great warmth about the staff and the management. Professionals told us about the exceptional care that people received at Mile Oak and told us that they recommended the home to others. People were offered choices about how they spent their time and were supported with respect by staff who protected people’s dignity and promoted their independence. Visitors were welcomed whenever they wished to visit and were encouraged to feedback through regular meetings and annual surveys.

People were protected from the risks of abuse because staff understood the potential signs and how to report concerns. There were sufficient numbers of safely recruited staff available to meet people’s needs and staff knew people well and understood the risks they faced and how to manage these. Accidents and incidents were reported, recorded and learning shared with staff. People received their medication safely and these were recorded accurately.

People were involved in pre-admission assessments which identified their physical, religious, emotional and mental health needs to ensure that these could be effectively met. There were assessments of capacity and decisions made in people’s best interests where required. People had a choice of meals and drinks and spoke positively about the food. Staff received regular support through supervision and had access to relevant training opportunities to provide them with the correct skills and knowledge for their role.

People’s care records were reviewed regularly with their involvements and was therefore responsive to changing needs. People were supported by staff to engage in a range of social opportunities both in group settings and one to one time. People and relatives were aware about how to raise concerns if needed and felt that these would be listened and responded to. End of life care was person centred and planned with people to ensure that wishes and preferences were understood and respected.

Feedback from people, relatives and staff was that Mile Oak was well managed. Everyone spoke positively about the registered manager who placed an emphasis on ensuring they worked with staff on shifts and was available and approachable. Feedback was gathered and used to drive changes at the home and audits were used to identify any gaps or trends to continually improve the service people received.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.