Background to this inspection
Updated
20 April 2021
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.
As part of CQC’s response to the coronavirus pandemic we are looking at the preparedness of care homes in relation to infection prevention and control. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection control and prevention measures the provider has in place.
This inspection took place on 4 March 2021 and was announced.
Updated
20 April 2021
Oakland Grange is registered to accommodate up to 43 people who require personal care. At the time of the inspection, 42 people were living at the home. The home is based on four floors with two interconnecting passenger lifts and an ample choice of communal areas where people could meet and spend their day. All bedrooms had en-suite facilities.
The inspection was conducted on 19 and 20 October 2017 and was unannounced. There was a registered manager in place. 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.
At our last inspection, in September 2016, we identified breaches of Regulations 13 and 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Bruising to people was not always investigated or reported to the local safeguarding team; and the quality assurance systems were not always effective. At this inspection we found action had been taken. There were no longer any breaches of these regulations and quality assurance processes had been enhanced. However, some further improvement was required in other areas.
Staff sought consent from people before providing care or support and acted in their best interests. However, people’s capacity to make specific decisions was not always recorded and decisions that staff had taken on behalf of people were not always documented to show why they were in people’s best interests.
People felt safe living at the home. Staff knew how to identify, prevent and report abuse. They assessed and managed most risks to people effectively.
Arrangements were in place for the safe management of medicines. People received their medicines as prescribed.
There were enough staff to meet people’s needs in a timely way. Appropriate recruitment procedures were in place and pre-employment checks had been completed fully before staff started working with people.
People’s needs were met by staff who were competent, trained and supported in their role. People’s dietary needs were met and they received appropriate support to eat and drink enough.
People were supported to access healthcare services when needed. The home was taking part in a pilot project with other professionals to help reduce unnecessary hospital admissions.
People were cared for with kindness and compassion. Staff knew people well and supported people to maintain relationships that were important to them.
Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity. They encouraged people to remain as independent as possible and involved them in planning the care and support they received.
People’s needs were met in a personalised way. Each person had a care plan that was centred on their needs and reviewed regularly. Staff empowered people to make choices and responded promptly when people’s needs changed.
People had access to a meaningful activities based on their individual interests, including regular access to the community. They knew how to make a complaint and a complaints procedure was in place.
People and their relatives felt the service was run well. There was a clear management structure in place. Staff were organised, motivated and worked well as a team. They enjoyed working at the home and told us they felt valued.
People described an open culture where visitors were welcomed at any time. Staff enjoyed positive working relationships with external professionals and positive links had been developed with the community.