Waltham House Limited Also known as Oasis Care

Updated 21 October 2017

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.

We visited the provider’s offices on 21 September 2017 and made phone calls to people, relatives and staff between the 18 and 25 September 2017. The inspection was announced. The provider was given a short amount of notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that the manager was available. The inspection was carried out by one inspector and an Expert by Experience. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

During the visit to the provider’s office we looked at the care records of three people who used the service, staff recruitment files and training records and other records relating to the day to day running of the service. We spoke with the manager of the service who was also the provider.

Before and after the visit to the provider’s offices we carried out telephone interviews with eight people who used the service, three relatives and six care workers.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. This included looking at information we had received about the service and statutory notifications the registered manager had sent us. We also contacted the Local Authority Commissioning Unit.

We also 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. The registered provider returned the PIR and we took this into account when we made judgements in this report.

Updated 21 October 2017

Oasis Care provides a homecare service in the Airedale and South Craven areas of Yorkshire. At the time of our inspection they were providing personal care to 29 adults who were living with dementia and/or had physical disabilities. Most of the care and support provided was prompting and assisting people with personal care, meal preparation and medication with a low number of complex care packages.

The inspection took place between the 18 and 25 September 2017 and was announced. At the last inspection in June 2016 we rated the service ‘Requires Improvement’ overall and found three breaches of regulations relating to recruitment procedures, medicine management and governance.

At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the service was no longer in breach of regulation. We rated the service ‘good’ overall as we found a good quality and person centred service. People provided good feedback about the service and its staff. We identified some minor improvements were needed to governance to demonstrate the service was consistently well led. However due to the small size of the service and the oversight provided by the manager, we did not identify any impact on people who used the service. We had confidence these issues would be addressed by the management team.

A registered manager was in place but they had recently left the service. They were in the process of deregistering and the provider was in the process of becoming the new 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 provided positive feedback about the service and said care met their individual needs. They said staff delivered a timely and reliable service and treated them with dignity and respect. Good relationships had developed between people and staff. People’s views and comments were listened to and acted on to make improvements to the service.

Care and support was delivered safely. Medicines were managed safely and clear records of the support staff provided was recorded. Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and care plans instructed staff how to undertake tasks such as moving and handling in a safe manner.

There were enough staff deployed to ensure a safe and timely service. Staff rotas were manageable and enabled people to receive care calls at roughly the same time each day. A small amount of travel time was included to enable staff to stay with people for the full allocated time.

Safe recruitment procedures were in place to ensure caring staff with the right values were recruited. Staff received a range of training on induction and at regular intervals to ensure they had the right skills to care for people.

The service was acting within the legal framework of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). People’s consent was sought prior to the delivery of care and support.

The service liaised with health professionals over people’s healthcare needs. This was documented within people’s care plans to show the interventions undertaken. Staff were clear what they would do in a medical emergency to ensure people were kept safe.

People’s care needs were assessed by the manager prior to using the service. These were used to develop care plans which varied in their detail depending on the complexity of people’s care and support needs. Records provided evidence people received timely care in line with their care plans and people told us the standard of care was high.

People, relatives and staff said the office were helpful and they were usually able to get through to the manager should they need to. Staff praised the manager and said they were supportive and approachable.

Audits and checks were undertaken on the service. Some systems such as overseeing supervisions and appraisals and the collating of incidents and minor complaints needed to be made more robust.