Archived: Craven House Oakdene

Updated 21 March 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 inspection took place on 27 February 2016 and was carried out by one adult social care inspector. The inspection was unannounced.

People who used the service had complex needs and were unable to share their views about their experiences. We therefore used observations throughout the day to see how people were in their surroundings. We also saw how staff interacted with people and how people’s needs were being met. As part of the inspection we took time to contact relatives either by telephone or by visiting them at home, to seek their views.

Prior to our inspection we reviewed all of the information we held about the service. We considered information which had been shared with us by the local authorities who were responsible for placements. Before the inspection the provider completed 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 also gathered information we required during the inspection visit.

We spoke with the relatives of two people who lived at the home, five members of staff and the registered manager. We also met everyone living at Craven House and spent time with them in the communal areas.

We looked at all areas of the home, including people’s bedrooms, with their permission where this was possible. We looked at the kitchen, laundry, bathrooms, toilets and all communal areas. We spent time looking at two care records and associated documentation. This included records relating to the management of the service; for example policies and procedures, audits and staff duty rotas. We looked at the recruitment records for three members of staff. We also observed the lunchtime experience and interactions between staff and people living at the home.

Updated 21 March 2016

This inspection took place on 27 February 2016 and was unannounced. There were no breaches of regulation at the last inspection on 24 September 2014.

Craven House Oakdene provides care and support for up to 4 people who have a learning disability. The home is situated in a single story building with disabled access. All bedrooms are single and two have en-suite facilities. The lounge and dining room are spacious and comfortable and within easy access of the all the bedrooms.

The home has 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.

We found people were cared for and supported by sufficient numbers of suitably qualified and experienced staff. Robust recruitment procedures were in place to make sure suitable staff worked with people who used the service and staff completed an induction when they started work. Staff received the training and support required to meet people’s needs. Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Staff ensured that people were supported to make decisions about their care. People were cared for in line with current legislation and they were consulted about choices as much as possible.

Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding vulnerable adults and knew what to do to keep people safe. Relatives we spoke with also told us they thought people were safe at the home. There were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines safely.

People’s care plans contained sufficient and relevant information to provide consistent care and support. People’s mealtime experience was good with ample assistance available for those who required one to one help with their meal. People received good support which ensured their health care needs were met. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity.

People were supported to take part in activities and daily occupations which they found both meaningful and fulfilling. Relatives told us that they appreciated how staff had thought of new ways to make sure people could join in daily routines and events they could enjoy. Staff had also been responsible for encouraging and supporting people with new interests which they had benefited from. The home made a particular effort to communicate with relatives and other interested parties to make sure that people were ‘given a voice’ despite their complex needs.

We observed throughout our visit, and were told by relatives, that people were treated with kindness and compassion. We saw people smiling and engaging with staff. Staff knew how best to communicate with people. This included the use of gestures, touch and key phrases, which the person understood. Staff responded quickly to people’s changing needs and knew people well enough to know when a subtle facial expression or a sound indicated they needed assistance or support. Needs were regularly monitored through staff updates and staff meetings. We saw staff had a good rapport with people and worked together as a team.

The home was regularly cleaned and staff were trained in infection control.

People’s needs in relation to food and drink were met. People enjoyed the meals and their suggestions had been incorporated into menus. We observed that the dining experience was pleasant and that people had choice and variety in their diet.

The service had good management and leadership in place. People had opportunities to comment on the quality of service and influence service delivery. Effective monitoring systems were in place which ensured people received safe quality care. Complaints were welcomed and were investigated and responded to appropriately. The registered manager worked alongside the team, supporting the staff to ensure people received the care and support they needed. People told us they got on with the registered manager and that they were approachable and listened to them.

There were quality assurance systems in place which were used to make improvements to the service. We sampled a range of safety audits and looked at the results of a recent quality survey sent out to relatives, healthcare professionals, including social workers.