We carried out a review of the data available to us about Oakleigh on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Oakleigh, you can give feedback on this service.
Accommodation is provided in the main house, which can accommodate up to six people, and five self-contained apartments (Oakleigh Mews) where people live on their own, whilst receiving staff support. Oakleigh and Oakleigh Mews have extensive grounds. Facilities available to people include a games room, gymnasium and spacious garden for people to enjoy, grow vegetables and tend to animals.
At the last inspection, the home was rated Good.
This inspection was undertaken to review whether the recommendations made by the provider following a safeguarding referral and investigation at the time of the previous inspection in July 2016 had been put into place. We found they had and the rating for this home remains good.
Why the service is rated Good:
People told us they felt safe living at Oakleigh. They said there were enough staff to care for them and keep them safe. One person said, “Yes, I’m safe here.” Another person said, “I like that there’s someone here at night to call if I need them. That makes me feel safe.” All four relatives confirmed their relatives received safe care and support at the home. One relative said, “It’s the best home he’s gone to. I don’t have any worries.”
Records showed, and people told us they were supported to take part in a variety of activities both in and out of the home. Risks to people’s health, safety and welfare were identified and managed well. People received their medicines safely.
People received effective care and support from staff who were well trained and competent. Staff monitored people's health and made sure they were seen by appropriate healthcare professionals to meet their specific needs. People were supported to prepare and cook for themselves and others. Staff supported people to make healthy lifestyle choices.
Staff were caring and some had worked at the home for many years. Staff and people knew each other well and we saw kind and friendly interactions between them. People were supported to make choices about how they wished to be cared for and staff supported their independence. People's privacy was respected.
Staff provided care and support which was responsive to people's individual needs. Each person was involved in developing a care plan that described their needs and preferences.
The service was well-led by the registered manager and senior staff who were open and approachable. People told us they were comfortable talking to the staff or registered manager if they had a concern or wished to make a complaint.
The home was safe and well maintained. Equipment had been serviced regularly to ensure it remained in safe working order.
There was a registered manager in post. 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.
Prior to the inspection we were aware concerns had been raised by a family member with the local safeguarding team and the provider, which were being investigated. We took this information in to account during our inspection.
People experienced care and support that suited their individual needs and which helped them to live safe, fulfilled and meaningful lives, in the way they wanted to. There was a relaxed, calm and happy atmosphere at the home with lots of smiles, good humour, fun and affection. People were relaxed and comfortable with staff that were attuned to their needs. Staff spoke with pride about the people they cared for and celebrated their achievements. Relatives told us that people’s confidence and ability to be as independent as possible had grown since being at Oakleigh. One family member told us that before their relative came to live at Oakleigh they were not able to look after themselves and did not have the confidence to go out. They described how the staff had used small steps and encouragement which resulted in their relative cooking, cleaning and shopping for themselves. They told us how delighted they were with their progress.
Staff had a ‘can do’ approach and they really made the most of opportunities to support people in taking risks so that they could participate in things which were important to them. There was a wide variety of activities available for both individuals and groups. These were designed to provide a variety of familiar and new experiences for people to lead fulfilled lives in accordance with their individual interests and abilities. People enjoyed spending time in their local community where they frequently visited cafes, shops and pubs. Relatives said they appreciated that people were stimulated, enjoyed a range of activities, went out regularly and had holidays. Relatives and friends were able to visit the home at any time and people were supported to visit and stay with relatives whenever possible.
People told us they felt safe with staff. Relatives had no concerns about the safety of people. There were policies and procedures regarding the safeguarding of adults and staff knew what action to take if they thought anyone was at risk of potential harm. There were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. These included thorough staff recruitment, staff training and systems for protecting people against risks.
Risks to individuals were well managed and people were able to stay safe without having their freedoms restricted. Managers and staff promoted peoples independence and encouraged positive risk taking. If an incident or accident did occur, they were well reported and investigated. Staff understood the importance of learning from incidents, so they could make sure they did not re-occur.
There were enough suitably trained staff to meet people's individual care needs. We saw staff spent time with people and provided assistance to people who needed it. Staff were available to support people to go on trips or visits within the local community and pursue their own interests and activities.
People received their medicines safely and received on going health care support. The service utilised specialists such as learning disability nurses, behaviour analysts, practitioner psychologists and psychiatrist in learning disabilities within the organisation to ensure that people who needed extra support were provided it quickly. Staff members were assigned as key workers to people working closely with them to achieve goals in relation to their daily living skills.
Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), and they demonstrated a good understanding of the act and its application. Where people did not have the capacity to make decisions about their care, meetings were held with people, their relatives, and health and social care professionals to help ensure that any decisions were made in the best interests of people using the service.
People were supported to maintain a healthy diet. People were able to choose what they wanted to eat and were involved in the shopping and preparation of their meals where possible. In the main house, people took it in turn to plan and prepare the evening meal for all residents. Menus were discussed at residents meetings where people were able to say what foods they liked or din not like. People could access the kitchen at any time and were able to help themselves to meals, drinks and snacks.
People we spoke with knew how to make a complaint and we noted the home openly discussed issues so that any lessons could be learned. People felt they were able to express their views at any time and that they were listened to and acted on.
There were systems in place to effectively monitor the quality of the service and drive a culture of continuous improvement. The provider gathered information about the quality of their service from a variety of sources including people who used the service, their family and friends and external agencies. This was used to enable the provider to identify where improvement were needed and to implement and sustain continuous improvement in the service.
Summary of findings
We obtained four people's views of aspects of the service, speaking to one of them in more depth. We observed some of the support individuals received from staff, and spoke with two staff as well as the manager and registered manager.
We found that people's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was delivered in relation to their care. One person said of the staff, "They're all good listeners." People's privacy, dignity and independence were respected, with one person commenting "They treat me with respect here."
Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. They were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care safely and to an appropriate standard.
People were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent it from happening.
The provider had effective systems to monitor the quality of the service and to manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people who use the service and others.