Oban House Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

We assessed all quality statements within the safe key question. We found improvements had been made since the previous inspection in July 2023. The service was no longer in breach of regulations relating to assessing risk, safety monitoring and management. This meant people were safe and were not at risk of avoidable harm. Safe systems were in place to manage risks. People, family members and external health and social care staff told us they felt the service was safe.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People we spoke with said they could tell staff about things that concerned them. They were confident that changes would happen if they did.

There were robust processes in place to monitor incidents and accidents. This meant all accidents or incidents were reviewed regularly and prompt action taken where required. Since the last inspection a number of improvements have been made with new and improved policies and procedures; and a more robust quality assurance process has been implemented. This has resulted in an improvement in the overall quality and safety of the service.

The provider was open and transparent and acknowledged that work was needed following the last rating. It was evident they had worked hard to improve the service to provide people with safe and effective care and create a more person centred approach.

Staff had access to clear and up-to-date information relating to people's health and care needs. This ensured people moved seamlessly between services. For example, if people needed to attend hospital, staff had all the available information to assist other health professionals with their care.

There was a comprehensive admission process which helped ensure that only people whose needs could be safely met at Oban would be admitted. Care records evidenced contact with the person, family members, external professionals and others involved in the person’s care as part of the pre-admission process.

External care professionals were positive about the improvement of the service and felt staff and providers worked with them to ensure people received a safe and effective service. There was still scope for improvement, however, an external health professional said, “The home has improved but they could access so much more from us by utilising the training and resources we can offer more. Also communication can sometimes be erratic meaning the service could be missing out on extra support should they need it." This was fed back to the service and been acted upon.

People were supported to attend external health appointments. A family member told us how the provider had taken a person for a hospital appointment. This meant any relevant information could be provided to the hospital staff and the service would be aware of any changes required following specialist appointments.

Staff had received safeguarding training and knew how to prevent, identify and report allegations of abuse. One staff member described the actions they would take if they witnessed or suspected abuse They told us, "If I had concerns, I'd go to my senior or [Registered Manager]. I could also go to you (CQC) or the police, if needed." This assured us that staff knew the correct process to follow when dealing with safeguarding concerns.

People and their relatives said they felt safe. A family member told us, "They are wonderful and I feel very safe here.” Another said, “They are like angels.”

Appropriate systems were in place and followed, which protected people from the risk of abuse. The providers understood the actions required should they have a safeguarding concern. Where these had occurred, they had been reported appropriately to CQC and the local safeguarding team.

There were no signs of abuse. People were supported and included in everything and independence was promoted in a respectful way. Staff were available to support people in a safe but empowering way. There were sufficient staff available to ensure people were kept safe.

At the last inspection we identified the provider's systems and procedures to assess and manage risks for service users were not sufficiently robust. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation. Risks were assessed and recorded, along with action staff needed to take to mitigate the risk. For example, risk assessments were in place for people at risk of falling. Daily records of care showed staff were following actions to reduce risks to people.

Risks were effectively managed. This ensured people were able to be as independent as possible and enjoy things they liked doing. People’s risk of falls were managed effectively. Risks were mitigated by ensuring care plans were effectively reviewed and equipment put in place, such as, sensor mats.

Staff were available to offer support to people. We observed staff supporting people safely and with kindness. Staff were proactive in reducing risks. One person was prevented from having a fall due to a quick intervention by a member of staff.

Staff understood the risks in people's care and knew how to reduce risks to keep people safe.

Staff had received fire awareness training and understood the actions they should take should a fire occur.

People spoke positively about the home. A person told us, “The place is spotless.” Another person told us there was a daily cleaner.

Regular maintenance checks of the environment were completed;records confirmed that equipment was serviced, and quality monitored. Fire safety processes and checks were completed regularly, including regular testing and auditing of equipment and systems within the premises.

People appeared at ease in the service. Staff used equipment appropriately to promote people's safety, for example, they responded promptly to call bells and sensor alarms.

At this inspection we found improvements had been made. The service considered people’s needs and abilities before admission to the service. This helped ensure there were appropriate numbers of staff available who had the skills required to support people. There were safe and effective recruitment procedures in place to help ensure only suitable staff were employed. This was also an improvement from the last inspection.

Staffing levels were appropriate to meet people's needs and there were sufficient numbers of skilled and experienced staff deployed to keep people safe. We observed staff were available to people and respond to their requests for support. Staff had time to chat to people and support them in a calm way.

People felt there were enough staff. One said, “They are so welcoming and know us well”. Another said, “I sometimes have to wait to go to the loo, but it’s never an issue.”

Staff told us staffing levels were sufficient to meet people's needs and provide people with the support they required. Staff felt supported in their roles and received one-to-one sessions of supervision and regular training. At the last inspection, staff told us that they did not receive sufficient training and supervision so this is an improvement from the last inspection.

Domestic staff were clear on their role and described working and communicating well with the registered manager to coordinate cleaning systems. They were clear on domestic arrangements to ensure that private and communal areas were kept clean and as free from infection as possible. Feedback was very positive about the work of the domestic team.

The home was clean and the provider was promoting safety through the hygiene practices of the premises with housekeeping staff completing regular cleaning in accordance with set schedules. We observed staff using personal protective equipment (PPE) appropriately. This was an improvement from the last inspection.

People and relatives were happy with the cleanliness of the home.

Appropriate arrangements were in place to control the risk of infection. Staff had been trained in infection control techniques and had access to personal protective equipment (PPE). The provider's infection prevention and control policies and procedures reflected current best practice guidelines. Staff understood where and how to seek advice should they have an infection control concern.

Staff had been trained to administer medicines and had been assessed as competent to do so safely. Staff were reassessed at regular intervals through mentoring and competency checks. Guidance was in place to help staff understand when to give people their medicines and in what dose.

People received their medicines as prescribed and they could request 'as required' (PRN) medicines when needed.