23 April 2014
During a routine inspection
During our inspection we spoke with six of the seven people who lived at Oaktree House. We also talked with five people who live in supported accommodation and receive domiciliary care services from the provider. We spoke with the manager and six staff during the inspection.
Our inspection team was made up of one inspector who helped to answer our five questions: Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?
Is the service safe?
People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe. Individual risk assessments were undertaken and care plans put in place to support people's safety.
Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported. We saw evidence that where a safeguarding concern had been raised, the issue had been dealt with promptly and appropriately.
Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, and concerns which reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.
The home was safe, well maintained, clean and hygienic. There were systems in place to ensure that maintenance needs were reported and acted upon in a timely manner.
The registered manager was responsible for drawing up staff rotas taking into account numbers, qualifications, skills and experience required, when considering people's care needs. There was low staff turnover, which meant that people and staff knew each other well.
Care records, staff records and maintenance logs were kept up to date and were stored in a safe, secure environment.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs were assessed and written in easy read care plans. People said they had been involved in writing their care plan and that they reflected their current needs.
People were supported to maximise their independence over time and encouraged to take responsibility for their environment. People were encouraged to undertake a range of activities to promote their physical, mental and spiritual well-being.
People's needs were taken into account with the layout of the service enabling people to move around freely and safely. Staff told us that additional equipment was acquired when needed to ensure that people with reduced mobility were supported.
Visitors were able to see people in private and at times to suit them. People had access to computers, tablets and phones to help them stay in contact with family and friends.
Is the service caring?
People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw care workers talking to people about what they wanted to do and helping them to achieve this. We observed staff discussing how to support a person who was feeling low and offering suggestions about what could be done to improve their emotional well-being.
People were able to raise concerns and issues as well as suggestions in meetings such as house meetings and a local group held at a day centre. We saw evidence that changes had taken place in response to people's comments.
People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes. We spoke with people who told us that they enjoyed a wide range of activities which they had chosen to do.
Is the service responsive?
People regularly completed a range of activities in and outside the service. The home had its own transport, which helped to keep people involved with their local community. People told us they sometimes changed their mind about what to do and that staff helped them to do their alternative choice. We observed staff making adjustments to schedules to fit in with people's requests.
People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. People told us they had not had to make a formal complaint but that they felt happy to raise any concerns or issues with staff who would help to resolve them.
We saw evidence that independent advocacy services had been used to ensure people felt able to voice their preferences in a neutral atmosphere.
Is the service well-led?
The manager and team leader worked together to ensure that staff were supported to deliver care to people according to their needs. They provided support and guidance when staff had concerns.
Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and worked to promote good relationships with all the people and other staff. This helped to ensure people received a good quality service at all times.
Staff received regular supervision from their managers and also told us that they felt confident they would get support if they needed help. Staff were given training in addition to the mandatory training to help them support people in different ways.