The Oaklea Trust (Durham & Northumberland)

Updated 13 October 2018

This was a comprehensive inspection.

This inspection took place on 21 August 2018. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure that someone would be in the office.

The inspection team consisted of one adult social care inspector 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.

We reviewed information we held about the service, including the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send us within required timescales.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We also contacted the local authority commissioners for the service and the local Healthwatch to gain their views of the service provided. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England. We also received feedback from a social care professional.

During the inspection we spoke with eight people who used the service and seven relatives. We looked at three care plans along with medicine administration records. We spoke with five members of staff, including the registered manager. We also received completed questionnaires from a further five members of staff. We looked at four staff files, including recruitment records. We also looked at quality assurance records and completed audits.

Updated 13 October 2018

This comprehensive inspection took place on 21 August 2018 and was announced.

The Oaklea Trust is a domiciliary care agency that provides personal care and support to people in their own homes and also in supported living and shared lives schemes. At the time of our inspection there were 63 people receiving support from the service.

At our last inspection we rated the service good. At this inspection we found some low-level concerns which have resulted in a rating of requires improvement in one area. However, our findings continued to support the overall rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing 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.

People were cared for safely by staff who understood safeguarding procedures and knew how to raise any concerns. Individuals risks were assessed and plans put in place to minimise them. Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored to reduce future risk.

People received their medicines as prescribed, however, medicines records and stock control was not always well managed. We have made a recommendation about this.

Staff had access to a wide range of training to ensure they had the necessary skills and knowledge to support people effectively. Specialist training was available to help staff meet the specific needs of the people they supported. People were supported to access healthcare and encouraged to have a healthy diet appropriate to their needs.

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.

Staff were passionate about their work and promoted dignity and independence. People who used the service and their relatives were all very happy with the support they received and told us staff were friendly.

Support plans contained very detailed information about people, their likes and dislikes and how best to meet their needs. People were engaged in a variety of activities and supported to access the community they lived in. There was a procedure in place to deal with concerns or complaints and records we saw showed this was followed appropriately.

The service was led by a management team who supported staff well. Feedback was sought from people using the service and staff and this formed part of the provider’s improvement plan. A comprehensive system of audits was in place to monitor the quality of the service. However, the medicines audit was to be reviewed to ensure any future discrepancies were identified.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.