Oakland Court

Updated 29 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.

The inspection took place on 13 and 14 March 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of three inspectors 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. Their area of expertise included older people and dementia care.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the home. This included information from other agencies and statutory notifications sent to us by the registered manager about events that had occurred at the service. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law. We used all this information to decide which areas to focus on during our inspection. The registered provider had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). The PIR is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection we spoke with 12 people who lived at the home, one relative, a visitor, the chief executive, the registered manager, chef, care co-ordinator, lead senior, three care staff including one who also arranged activities and the maintenance man. We also spoke with a visiting health professional.

We spent time observing the care and support that people received and also observed a member of staff administering medicines to people.

We reviewed a range of records about people’s care and how the home was managed. These included five care records and medicines records. We also looked at staff training, support and employment records, audits, minutes of meetings, menus, policies and procedures and other records relating to the management of the home.

Updated 29 June 2018

The inspection took place on 13 and 14 March 2018 and was unannounced.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Requires Improvement overall and in each domain apart from Caring and Responsive which were rated Good. The rating of Requires Improvement was awarded in relation to the storage of medicines, arrangements to prevent avoidable accidents, support for people with their nutrition and hydration, safe recruitment systems and audits. At this inspection, we found that steps had been taken to address all these issues and the rating has improved to Good in each domain and overall.

Oakland Court is registered to provide accommodation and care for up to 37 older people with a range of needs. At the time of our inspection, 34 people were living at the home. Communal areas include a dining room, lounge leading to a large conservatory, additional conservatory area next to the reception and accessible, landscaped gardens. All rooms are en-suite and accommodation is over three floors serviced by a lift. Oakland Court is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or 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.

A registered manager was in post. 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.

Medicines were managed safely. Risks in relation to people and in the management of premises had been identified, assessed and were managed satisfactorily. People felt safe living at Oakland Court and staff had been trained to recognise the signs of potential abuse and knew what action to take. Staffing levels were assessed based on people’s care and support needs. Robust recruitment systems were in place. Lessons were learned when things went wrong and case conferences provided opportunities for issues to be discussed and improvements made. The home was clean and odour free; effective infection control systems were in place.

People’s risks in relation to nutrition and hydration were monitored and steps taken to ensure people maintained a healthy lifestyle. Healthcare professionals and services were available to people as required. Menus offered people a range of choices at mealtimes and people were involved in the planning of menus. Staff completed a range of training considered essential for their role and received regular supervisions with an annual appraisal. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were looked after by kind and caring staff who knew them well. Positive and meaningful relationships had been developed. People were encouraged to express their views and to be involved in all aspects of their care. Their privacy and dignity were maintained.

People received care that was person-centred and responsive to their needs. Care plans were detailed and provided guidance to staff about people, their likes, dislikes and preferences. Monthly review meetings were held with people to discuss their care and information was available in an accessible format. Staff completed equality and diversity training and understood how to treat people as individuals. People’s spiritual and religious needs were catered for. Activities were organised and were varied. Complaints were addressed in line with the provider’s policy. People could be cared for until the end of their lives at Oakland Court and had access to appropriate healthcare support.

Audits were robust and identified any areas for improvement so that actions could be taken. People and staff were complimentary about the management of the home. Residents’ meetings took place and people felt their views were listened to at meetings and through questionnaires they completed. Staff were also asked for their feedback and felt supported in their roles. People were happy with the quality of care and life at Oakland Court.