Archived: Oxford Respite Service

Oxford Respite Service provides accommodation, personal care and support for up to six people on a short term basis. At the time of the inspection the service was providing personal care and support to two people.

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.

Staff knew what action to take if they were concerned that someone was being abused or mistreated. The provider's whistleblowing policy protected staff to make disclosures about poor staff conduct or practice, and staff confirmed the manager would take responsive action if they reported such problems. People had risk assessments in place to keep them safe whilst enabling them to be as independent as possible.

Staff had been recruited safely to ensure they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff to meet people's needs and people received their medicines as prescribed.

The building was secure and safety checks were regularly undertaken to ensure people's safety.

Some people who used the service did not have capacity to make decisions about certain aspects of their care needs. Staff understood the systems in place to protect people who could not make decisions and followed the legal requirements outlined in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Staff told us they felt supported by the management and received supervision and appraisals, which helped to identify their training and development needs.

People had access to health and social care services. The provider worked closely with healthcare professionals to assess people's needs and plan their support.

During their stays people were involved in menu planning, shopping and meal preparation. We saw snacks were available throughout the day and people had access to drinks as they wanted them. People were supported to eat and drink and any special dietary considerations were catered for.

People's needs had been assessed before they went to stay at the home and we found people and their relatives had been involved in the planning of the care. The care files we checked reflected people's needs and preferences so staff had clear guidance on how to care for people.

People's privacy and dignity were protected by a caring staff team. There were positive relationships between people, their families and members of staff. People and their families were treated with kindness and compassion.

People received person-centred care, based on their individual strengths, interests and needs. People and their relatives said they had no complaints, but they would feel comfortable speaking to staff if they had any concerns. Although no concerns had been raised, the registered manager told us that all reported concerns would be investigated and resolved in a timely manner.

There were systems in place for monitoring the quality of the service which were effective. Where improvements were needed, these were addressed and followed up to ensure continuous improvement. The provider sought views of people using the service through feedback forms. They recognised the importance of regularly monitoring the quality of the service provided to people.

Staff, people and their relatives we spoke with told us the manager was approachable and the service was well-led.

We looked at three peoples care files and spoke with three staff which included the care coordinator and two care workers. We also reviewed documents made available to us. We considered our inspection findings to answer the questions we always ask:

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well-led?

This is a summary of what we found.

If you want to see the evidence that supports our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

The service was safe. There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. We found that rotas were done weekly and were planned around people who used the service. Staff we spoke with told us, 'We don't mind the late notice because we all believe in putting the people first.'

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. We saw that each person's care plan contained an emergency continuity plan in the case of an emergency such as a flood. We also saw that a fire risk assessment had been completed for each person. In addition we saw clear guidance to staff in the event of a missing person, illness or maintenance issue.

Is the service effective?

The service was effective. We saw support plans in place along with risk assessments to ensure care workers could safety meet their needs. We saw that this person was also at risk of choking. We saw a risk assessment in place and clear guidelines for staff to follow. This meant that care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

People were supported in promoting their independence and community involvement. We saw that people who used the service benefited from regular trips out into the community.

Is the service caring?

The service was caring. We looked at three peoples support plan's and saw that people needs were reviewed at each visit. This was to ensure that where people's needs had changed since their last stay, the service could respond. We saw that support plans were in place for each person and these were supported by risk assessments where appropriate.

People we spoke with felt respected and involved, one person told us, 'they are nice and listen to what I say'. Another person told us, 'I am involved all the time'. Care workers we spoke with discussed how they ensure people are involved. One care worker told us, 'we aim for a culture of complete involvement; we are led by them [people who used the service]'.

Is the service responsive?

The service was responsive. People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. One person had been at the service for a longer term and was in the process of finding permanent accommodation. We saw that this person was being kept up to date with this process and remained at the centre of the process.

There was evidence that learning from incidents / investigations took place and appropriate changes were implemented. We looked at the accidents and incidents file and saw that when accidents or incidents occurred they were recorded and sent to a central office. These were then reviewed by the registered manager and feedback was sent back to the service with lessons learned.

Is the service well led?

The service was well led. Care workers we spoke with felt they were well led. One care worker told us, 'management are exceptional, they bend over backwards'. We saw throughout the day that information was shared with staff. We saw updates on the wall in the office along with organisational charts as well as 'important information file' to ensure care workers were kept informed.

The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service and others.

Staff told us they were happy in their work and felt well supported by the manager and her deputy. They also said the Southern Health Senior Manager responsible for the service was approachable, helpful and "always willing to listen".

Care plans, whilst accurate, did not contain much person-centred detail, but this was a piece of work which was currently underway.

We spoke with the person who lived at the service. They were happy, content and well cared for.

The manager and her staff showed clarity around the very specific purpose of the unit.

We read positive comments from families of people who use this service.