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 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by CQC which looks at the overall quality of the service. This was an unannounced inspection which meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting.
Old Station House provides personal care for up to forty three older people in the Oxford area. Accommodation is provided in forty three flats arranged on 3 floors.
At our last inspection on 12 May 2013 the service met all of the outcomes we inspected against.
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 and shares the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law with the provider”
People told us they felt safe. One person said “Generally I feel safe here and well cared for,” The provider had effective procedures for ensuring that any concerns about people’s safety were appropriately reported.
Risks to people were appropriately assessed, managed and reviewed. We reviewed the history of the service in relation to risks and found no concerns. All assessments had been reviewed on a monthly basis ensuring they were up to date, and that people’s needs were being met appropriately. Some people were living with dementia. Activities for these people were linked with their preferences and personal histories. All staff had received dementia training and we saw them offering people choices and giving them time to choose.
There was enough staff to keep people safe and meet their needs. People told us they felt there was enough staff. Staffing levels matched planned staffing levels and the head of care told us staffing requirements were driven by people’s needs and the skills mix of the staff group. The service had a robust recruitment and selection process. Records confirmed that staff had received training appropriate to meet the needs of the people they cared for.
The home was clean and tidy and free from malodours. An infection control policy was in place and staff were aware of, and followed its guidance. People told us and we observed staff following safe routines using protective equipment such as gloves, aprons and hand gel.
At the time of our visit no one was subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) application. This is where a person can be lawfully deprived of their liberties where it is deemed to be in their best interests or their own safety. Staff at the home had knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and applied that knowledge appropriately.
People’s care needs were accurately recorded with clear guidance for care staff to follow on how to support them. The home contacted other healthcare professionals if they had concerns over people’s needs. People’s choices and preferences on how they wanted to be supported were also recorded.
People told us they were happy with the care and support they received at the service and valued the relationships they had with staff. One person said “I couldn’t have been looked after better even in the Ritz in London. They are all very kind and very patient.” We saw people being treated with dignity and respect.
People knew how to complain and the provider’s complaints policy was displayed around the home. All the complaints we saw had been dealt with appropriately, compassionately and in a timely fashion in line with the policy.
Regular “residents and relatives” meetings were held and people’s opinions and suggestions were recorded and acted upon. People told us they knew the senior management of the service and they were accessible and approachable. People told us they felt listened to and could change things about the service.
The registered manager monitored the quality of the care provided by completing regular audits. Results were analysed and action plans for improvement made where necessary. People’s opinions were sought and acted upon to improve the service. Regular surveys were conducted and results feedback to people via meetings and a newsletter.