Archived: Oxclose Lodge

Updated 1 July 2017

We carried out this inspection visit 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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014. Our inspection was unannounced and the team consisted of one inspector.

We checked the information we held about the service and the provider. This included notifications that the provider had sent to us about incidents at the service and information that we had received from the public. We also spoke with the local authority who provided us with their current monitoring information. We used this information to formulate our inspection plan.

On this occasion, we had not asked the provider to send us a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. However, we offered the provider the opportunity to share information they felt relevant with us at the inspection visit.

We spoke with one person who used the service and two relatives. Some people were unable to tell us their experience of their life in the home, so we observed how the staff interacted with people in communal areas.

We also spoke with three members of care staff and the registered manager. Before and after our inspection we also spoke with three health care professionals about the service. We looked at the training records to see how staff were trained and supported to deliver care appropriate to meet each person’s needs We looked at the care records for three people to see if they were accurate and up to date. We looked at the systems the provider had in place to ensure the quality of the service was continuously monitored and reviewed to drive improvement.

Updated 1 July 2017

This inspection visit was unannounced and took place on 19 June 2017. At our last inspection visit on 2 April 2015 we asked the provider to make improvements to the audits and supervision of staff. At this inspection, we found improvements had been made. The service was registered to provide accommodation for up to five people who have physical needs and a learning disability. At the time of our inspection five people were using the service.

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.

Oxclose Lodge comprises of a purpose built bungalow. There is a private enclosed garden which people can access from the rear of the bungalow. Within the garden there is a sensory summer house which can be accessed by people with support from staff.

The provider had completed a range of audits and quality checks and had responded to make improvements. Staff had received supervision and support for their role.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and we saw there was a flexible approach to the support they offered. Staff employed at the service had received the appropriate checks to ensure they were suitable to work with people. Medicines were administered safely by staff who were trained and regular audits ensured that any errors were addressed.

People were supported to be safe at the service and staff had received training to enable them to know how to raise any concerns. Risk assessments had been completed to cover all aspects of the environment and to maintain people’s safety when outside the service. Other risk assessments had been completed to support the individual’s independence and provide guidance when using equipment.

Staff had received a range of training to support the needs of people. Additional training was available to increase the staff’s knowledge and support their career development. There was a clear induction for all new staff which involved training and shadowing with experienced staff.

Staff understood what measures to take when people did not have the capacity to make decisions. Assessments had been completed to cover a range of decisions. When required referrals to the local authority had been made when there was an identified risk that someone’s liberty was deprived.

People could choose what food they wished to eat. People were supported with different ways to receive their nutrition and fluids to ensure they remained hydrated. When required specialist advice had been sought. Referrals to other health professional had been made to ensure the people maintained good health and well-being.

The staff had established positive relationships with the people to provide an individual level of care. Relationships with families had been promoted and they felt able to visit anytime. People’s dignity was respected and the staff had developed ways to promote their understanding of dignity.

The care plans provided details about people’s preferences and how they wished their care to be provided. Relationships that mattered had been included in the development of the plans. People’s leisure time was promoted and they had the choice of how to spend their day. There was a complaints policy in place which was available and any concerns had been addressed.

We saw that the previous rating was displayed in the reception of the home as required. The manager understood their responsibility of registration with us and notified us of important events that occurred at the service; this meant we could check appropriate action had been taken.