Archived: Red Oaks DCA

Updated 12 September 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 the 24 July and 2 August 2018 and was announced. It included visiting the site office, speaking to people and speaking with relatives by telephone after the site visit. This was so we could further understand people’s experiences. The inspection team consisted of one inspector. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the location provides a small domiciliary care service and we needed to be sure the people using the service, the registered manager and staff we needed to speak to were available.

Before the inspection, we reviewed information available to us about this service. This included notifications from the service and information shared with us by the provider. We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return (PIR). 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.

During the site visit we spoke with four staff and the registered manager. We looked at two people’s care plans, four staff files, staff training records, policies and procedures, quality assurance documentation and information and policies in relation to lone working and medicines. We spoke with three people using the service and two relatives during the inspection process. We have included their feedback in the main body of the report.

Updated 12 September 2018

Red Oaks DCA is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide people with personal care. The service provides support to older adults and people living with dementia and sensory needs, who are living in their own home within an ‘assisted living’ arrangement. The service is located within the grounds of a nursing home which is registered with the same provider. At the time of the inspection three people were receiving a service.

At the last inspection in December 2015 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated any serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since the last inspection. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good

A new registered manager had joined the service since the last inspection. A registered manager is a person who has been registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. The registered manager had continued to promote a person-centred culture at the service. This ensured people’s choices and wellbeing continued to be promoted. People and their relatives told us the service supported them to live independently in their own homes. A relative told us, “If my relative didn’t have us or the service they wouldn’t be able to live in their own home.”

People and relatives told us they felt safe and cared for by the service. One person told us, “They are good people, they help.” “It’s just the fact they are there.” A relative told us, “I trust them and they are kind and friendly.” People and their relatives were involved in their care planning and their preferences and choices were respected.

Systems and processes were in place to keep people safe. Health and safety and environmental risks were monitored. Risks were assessed and staff received guidance on what actions to take to mitigate risk and ensure people living with dementia and staff’s wellbeing in the community. Staff knew how to recognise the potential signs of abuse and what action to take to keep people safe.

Support with medicine was not being provided by the service. There were arrangements in place with people’s relatives and GPs, that ensured medicines were made available to people if required. The registered manager told us that this could be reconsidered, if for example there was a significant increase in the number of people they supported. They confirmed in this circumstance staff would receive suitable medicines administration training, and that they would put in place safe systems and processes in line with the provider’s policies.

There were sufficient staff available to ensure people’s wellbeing, safety and security was protected. One person told us, “They arrive on time and are good at helping us.” People’s preference to have support from a dedicated pool of known staff had been respected and introduced. A robust recruitment and selection process was in place, to ensure new staff had the right skills and were suitable to work with people living in their own homes.

Staff continued to work in line with the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People’s communication needs were met as staff had a good understanding of people’s methods of communication including their sensory needs. People and their relatives told us they could communicate with the service, and receive information in a way that met their needs. One person told us, they always listen, they don’t always have to agree with us, but they always listen.” “They never say you can’t do that.” When required, people had access to technology that promoted their independence.

People were supported to maintain good health and maintain a healthy, nutritious diet and had assistance to access health care services when they needed to. Staff understood the importance of supporting people and their loved one’s in relation to end of life care, as well as living a full life while they were able to do so. People’s important relationships were respected.

People and their relatives spoke positively about the service and how it was managed. The service’s leadership and value base continued to be reflected in their staff members actions and motivations. One person told us, “They would do anything you ask them.” A relative told us they felt the registered manager had the service ‘well in hand’ and that, “They do what they do, very well.” The service had an open transparent culture, where feedback, complaints and surveys were encouraged and acted on.