Archived: Oakfield Nursing 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.

All the people we spoke with said they liked living at the home. One person told us 'They look after me very well here. The staff are very pleasant.' A relative told us 'It's a miracle with what they have done with my family member'.

People told us that staff always asked for their consent before carrying out care tasks. Staff had received training on mental capacity and understood their responsibilities with regards to decision making.

People who used the service and relatives had been involved in the planning of care. We saw that risks had been identified to protect the welfare and safety of people.

We looked around the house and saw that it was generally clean and tidy. People and a relative told us they were happy with the standards of cleanliness. We noticed there were some minor decorative issues in some of the toilets and bathrooms.

We saw that the manager carried out appropriate checks when they employed staff. This ensured staff were of good character and had the necessary skills and experience to do the job.

The provider had a system in place for dealing with complaints. People we spoke with said they knew how to make a complaint.

We observed people receiving safe and effective care that was based on detailed care plans and risk assessments. People who used the service told us they were aware of which medications they took, how much and why, and that they discussed medication and treatment with their key worker. People told us they had no complaints about the service they received but that they had been made aware of the provider's complaints procedure. We spoke with two care staff who demonstrated a good understanding of the support needs of people who used the service and were clear about their responsibilities with regards to keeping people safe and the processes in place for reporting suspected abuse. The registered manager told us staff received ongoing training and supervision that provided them with the skills and knowledge to meet the needs of the people they were supporting.