Archived: Oakfield Nursing Home

Updated 16 August 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 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.

This inspection took place on 21 June 2016 and was unannounced.

The inspection team consisted of one inspector, an expert by experience who was experienced in care and support for elderly people, and a nurse specialist with experience of care for people with mental health support needs.

Before the inspection we reviewed records held by CQC which included notifications, complaints and any safeguarding concerns. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. This enabled us to ensure we were addressing potential areas of concern at the inspection.

The provider had completed 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. This information was reviewed to see if we would need to focus on any particular areas at the home.

We spoke with seven people who lived at the home and seven staff which included the registered manager and the provider. We also used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We observed how staff cared for people, and worked together. We also reviewed care and other records within the home. These included six care plans and associated records, three medicine administration records, four staff recruitment files, and the records of quality assurance checks carried out by the staff.

We also contacted Healthwatch, and commissioners of the service to see if they had any information to share about the home. At our previous inspection in January 2014 we had not identified any concerns at the home.

Updated 16 August 2016

Oakfield Nursing Home is a care home that provides care for 29 people with mental health support needs, these included schizophrenia. At the time of our inspection 29 people were living at the home.

There was a registered manager 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.

The home was well decorated and adapted to meet people’s needs. Flooring was smooth and uncluttered to aid people’s mobility needs. The home had a homely feel and reflected the interests and lives of the people who lived there.

The inspection took place on 21 June 2016 and was unannounced.

People gave positive feedback about the management of the home; however we have made recommendations where two areas for improvement were identified. Quality assurance checks were not consistently effective at identifying areas where the home could improve. Records used around the home were not always effective at giving the management an oversight into how well the home was run.

There was positive feedback about the home and caring nature of staff from people who live here. One person said, “I’m quite happy here.” Another person said, “I do think I am well looked after here.” The staff were kind and caring and treated people with dignity and respect. Good interactions were seen throughout the day of our inspection, such as staff talking with people and showing interest in what people were doing. People could have visitors from family and friends whenever they wanted.

People were safe at Oakfield Nursing Home. There were sufficient staff deployed to meet the needs and preferences of the people that lived there. Risks of harm to people had been identified and clear plans and guidelines were in place to minimise these risks, without restricting people’s freedom. Staff understood their duty should they suspect abuse was taking place, including the agencies that needed to be notified, such as the local authority safeguarding team or the police.

The provider had carried out appropriate recruitment checks to ensure staff were suitable to support people in the home. Staff received a comprehensive induction and ongoing training, tailored to the needs of the people they supported.

People received their medicines when they needed them. Staff managed the medicines in a safe way and were trained in the safe administration of medicines.

In the event of an emergency people would be protected because there were clear procedures in place to evacuate the building. An alternative location for people to stay was also identified in case the home could not be used for a time.

Where people did not have the capacity to understand or consent to a decision the provider had followed the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). An appropriate assessment of people’s ability to make decisions for themselves had been completed. Staff were heard to ask people for their permission before they provided care.

Where people’s liberty may be restricted to keep them safe, the provider had followed the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure the person’s rights were protected.

People had enough to eat and drink, and specialist diets either through medical requirements, or personal choices were provided. People were supported to maintain good health as they had access to relevant healthcare professionals when they needed them. When people’s health deteriorated staff responded quickly to help people and made sure they received appropriate treatment. People’s health was seen to improve due to the care and support staff gave.

Care plans gave a good level of detail for staff to reference if they needed to know what support was required. People received the care and support as detailed in their care plans. Details in the care plans matched with what we saw on the day of our inspection, and with what people told us.

People had access to activities that met their leisure and mental health needs. The staff knew the people they cared for as individuals, and had supported them for many years.

People knew how to make a complaint. No complaints had been received since our last inspection. Staff knew how to respond to a complaint should one be received.