We carried out an inspection of Oakmount House on the 19 and 23 of February 2015. The first day of our visit was unannounced. We last inspected Oakmount House on 4 November 2013 to check whether improvements we required to be made had been completed. We found the issues raised had been dealt with satisfactorily.
Oakmount House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to nine people. The home supports people with mental ill health. It is an older type property situated on a main road on the outskirts of Burnley town centre and close to the town’s amenities. Communal areas consist of lounge and dining room and kitchen. There is a separate laundry. Accommodation is provided in single bedrooms and one shared bedroom. At the time of our visit there were eight people living in the home.
The service was managed by a 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.
People using the service were involved in decisions about how their care and support would be provided. The registered manager and staff understood their responsibilities in promoting people’s choice and decision making under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the DoLS. We found the location to be meeting the requirements of DoLS.
People told us they were cared for very well and they felt safe. Staff treated them well and gave them all the support they needed. One person said, “I love living here, it’s my home. We all get on well together. Nobody tells us what we can or cannot do.” Another person told us, “I’ve been here a long time and I wouldn’t like to go anywhere else. I feel perfectly safe here.”
People told us they determined their lifestyle and did not have to conform to any institutional practices. Routines were flexible and people had their preferred daily living plan recorded in their care records. This supported people’s varying needs being met at times that suited them and prevented institutional routines and practices occurring.
Staff gave a good account of and showed understanding of the varying needs of different people we had discussed with them. Staff said they enjoyed their work and worked well together for the benefit of people living in the home. Staff were clear about their responsibilities and duty of care.
People were cared for by staff who had been recruited safely and were both trained and receiving training to support them in their duties. Staff were kept up to date with changes in people’s needs and circumstances on a daily basis. We found there were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified staff to attend to people’s needs and keep them safe.
Contractual arrangements were in place to make sure staff did not gain financially from people they cared for at the home. For example, staff were not allowed to accept gifts, be involved in wills or bequests. This meant people could be confident they had some protection against financial abuse and this was closely monitored.
Individual risk assessments had been completed for all activities and were centred on the needs of the person. People’s rights to take risks were acknowledged and management strategies had been drawn up to guide staff and people using the service on how to manage identified risks. People were supported to use community facilities.
People had their medicines when they needed them. Medicines were managed safely. We found accurate records and appropriate processes were in place for the ordering, receipt, storage, administration and disposal of medicines.
The home was warm, clean and hygienic. There were infection control policies and procedures in place and the service held a maximum five star rating for food hygiene from Environmental Health following a self-assessment.
People told us they were satisfied with their bedrooms and living arrangements. Required maintenance work was being identified and monitored for completion by the registered manager. However we found radiators to be very hot and water temperatures exceeded a safe bathing temperature. This meant people were at risk of accidental scalding and burns. The registered manager said this would be raised as a safety issue with the registered provider. This was a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010. You can see what action we have asked the registered provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
Each person had an individual care plan. These were sufficiently detailed to ensure people’s care was personalised and they were kept under review. People were given additional support when they required this. Referrals had been made to the relevant health and social care professionals for advice and support when people’s needs had changed. This meant people received prompt, co-ordinated and effective care.
Health and social care professionals commented “They definitely want the best for people with quality lifestyles and giving them a feeling of self-worth.” And “They make sure people are not marginalised and will try to give people the same opportunities as everyone else. Very professional.”
People said the food served was very good and they had everything they wanted. They could have hot and cold drinks when they wanted. One person told us, “I go shopping every week with the staff for the food. We choose what we want on the menus at our meetings. The food is good and I can have what I want. The staff are good cooks.”
People told us they were confident to raise any issue of concern with the registered manager, staff and with the registered provider and that it would be taken seriously. They also told us they were encouraged to express their views and were kept up to date with any planned changes.
Confidence was expressed in the management of the home by people using the service, staff and health and social care professionals who visited the home on a regular basis. They described the management team and staff as ‘being professional’ and ‘doing a ‘sterling job’.