Oaklodge Nursing Home

Updated 7 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. This comprehensive inspection took place on 26 February 2018 and was unannounced.

The inspection team consisted of four 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. In this case they had experience of caring for older people who were living with dementia.

Before the inspection the provider had submitted 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. We looked at information we held about the service. This included any complaints we had received and any notifications. Notifications are changes, events or incidents that the service must inform us about. We contacted the local authority for their feedback before the inspection and received feedback from one health care professional during the inspection.

During our inspection we spoke with five people and ten relatives. We spoke with seven members of staff, the manager and the provider. We observed staff interactions with people. We reviewed a range of records about people’s care and how the service was managed. These included the care records for eight people, medicine administration record (MAR) sheets, four staff training, support and employment records, quality assurance audits, incident reports and records relating to the management of the service.

The service was last inspected on the 10 August 2015 and was awarded the rating of Good. At this inspection the service remains Good.

Updated 7 June 2018

Oaklodge Nursing Home is a 'care home.' People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Oaklodge Nursing Home is a nursing home providing care and support for up to 25 people who have nursing needs, including poor mobility, diabetes, those living with various stages of dementia and end of life care. The inspection took place on 26 February 2018 and was unannounced. On the day of the inspection 20 people were living at the home. The manager of the home was in the process of applying to become the registered manager. 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 we rated the service as good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on-going monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.

.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good. However we did find some areas that needed to improve. Not all records of care were clear and accurate. Incidents and accidents were recorded, however, inconsistencies in recording meant the description of events was not always clear. This was identified as an area of practice that needed to improve.

People and their relatives spoke highly of the staff and said they felt safe living at the home. Risks to people were identified, assessed and managed. Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe. People received their medicines safely and there were effective infection prevention and control measures in place. There were enough suitable staff on duty to care for people. One person said, “They come quickly when I ring the bell.”

Staff understood their responsibilities with regard to the Mental Capacity Act 2005. 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 told us their views were listened to.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink and spoke highly of the food on offer. One person said, “The food is nice and you get options. If you don’t like something there is an alternative.” People were supported to access the health care services they needed. A healthcare professional spoke highly of the staff, saying, “I trust their judgement, they recognise when people are unwell and always follow my instructions. I trust the staff and value their expertise.”

Staff demonstrated that they knew people well and positive relationships had developed. One relative said, “The staff are absolutely wonderful and always try their upmost.” Staff protected people’s privacy and dignity. People told us staff were kind and caring.

People and their relatives had been involved in developing care plans which were comprehensive. Staff had the information they needed to provide care in a personalised way. People and their relatives were involved in planning for end of life care. Staff recognised and responded to changes in people’s needs. People were supported to follow their individual interests as well as having organised activities.

People knew how to complain and were confident that their concerns would be responded to. People, their relatives and staff spoke highly of the management of the home. There were robust systems and processes in place to monitor and evaluate the care provided. There were clear governance arrangements with effective management oversight to identify shortfalls and drive improvements. Staff had developed positive connections with local organisations and described effective working relationships.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.