Archived: Oakfield House

Updated 7 July 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 unannounced inspection took place on the 11 and 12 May 2016. On the 11 May the inspection team consisted of one inspector and an expert by experience. An expert by experience is someone who has experience of caring for someone who uses this type of care service. On the 12 May the inspection was carried out by one inspector.

As part of the inspection we looked at information we already had about the provider. Providers are required to notify the Care Quality Commission about specific events and incidents that occur including serious injuries to people receiving care. We refer to these as notifications. Before the inspection, the provider had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR) and returned this to us within the timescale requested. 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. We reviewed the information from notifications and the PIR to plan the areas we wanted to focus our inspection on. We contacted the local authority who commission services from the provider for their views of the service.

We visited the home and spoke with three people who lived at the home. We met all the other people who lived at the home. Some people living at the home were unable to communicate verbally due to their health conditions. We spent time in communal areas observing how care was delivered and we 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 spoke with the registered manager, deputy manager and eight staff. We spoke with four relatives. We looked at records including two care plans and medication administration records. We looked at two staff files including a review of the provider’s recruitment process. We sampled records from training plans, incident and accident reports and quality assurance records to see how the provider monitored the quality of the service.

Following the inspection visit we spoke with one relative of a person for their views of the service

Updated 7 July 2016

This unannounced inspection took place on the 11 and 12 May 2016. The service was last inspected in October 2013 and was meeting all the regulations. Oakfield House provides accommodation for a maximum of twenty adults who are living with autism and learning disabilities and who require support with personal care. There were nineteen people living at the home at the time of the inspection although two people were on holiday. Some people were unable to verbally tell us about the care they received but did communicate with us through other forms of non- verbal communication.

The service has a registered manager who was present throughout the inspection. 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 told us they felt safe living at the service. Staff were aware of how to recognise possible signs of abuse and the need to report any concerns. We saw there were enough staff available to meet individual requests for support in a timely manner.

Whilst most medicines were given safely we found that there was a need for some improvement in the monitoring of medicines given on an ‘as required’ basis. There were systems in place to monitor medication administration.

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and could explain how they put this into practice when supporting the people living at the service. Staff received sufficient training to provide care based on people’s individual needs.

People had their healthcare needs met and received support to maintain their nutritional and hydration needs. People were treated with dignity and respect and their independence was promoted.

People and their relatives told us they were happy with the care provided and that staff were kind and caring and knew people well. People and those who were important to them were involved in planning care to meet the person’s individual preferences. Staff that we spoke with were enthusiastic about their role and could describe how people preferred to be supported.

There was opportunity for scheduled activities based on people’s known preferences. The service had many resources for activities at the home and had also developed links with the community to provide external activities for people.

Care was reviewed with people and those that were important to them to ensure care still met their needs. The service had ensured people maintained relationships with those who were important to them.

Relatives were aware of how to raise concerns and were confident that any concerns raised would be dealt with in a timely manner.

People and their relatives were happy with how the service was managed. The registered manager had ensured that the quality of the service was monitored and sought feedback from people, relatives and staff. Staff felt supported in their role and felt able to make suggestions for improvements to the service.