Oakleigh Residential Care Home is registered to provide accommodation for up to 27 people who require nursing or personal care. It does not provide nursing care. At the time of our inspection 21 people were using the service.

This inspection was undertaken by one inspector and an expert by experience. At the last inspection on 5 January 2015 we found that improvements were required. This was in relation to the way that risks to people were identified and managed. During the inspection we found that the required improvements had been made.

At this inspection we found the service remained 'Good'.

A registered manager was in post at the time of this inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 were knowledgeable about how to recognise, and protect people from, harm. Risk to people were effectively managed. Incidents were responded to and changes were made or were in the process of being implemented to help keep people safe. Medicines were administered and managed safely.

People's assessed care needs were met by a sufficient number of suitably qualified staff. Staff were recruited through a robust and thorough process. This helped ensure that staff who were subsequently employed were suitable to work with people who used the service.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People's needs were assessed by skilled staff who then implemented people's care and support based upon people's preferences.

People’s care plans were detailed and provided staff with sufficient guidance to care for people and meet their assessed needs. People's health and nutritional needs were met by staff who had been trained to support people with these needs. Staff enabled people to access health care support when this was needed.

Staff were aware of what was expected of them and they were provided with supervision and guidance on areas they needed to develop and what they had done well. A range of audits and quality assurance systems were in place to assess, monitor and improve the service.

People's, staff's and relatives views about the quality of the service were sought through day to day contact, questionnaires and telephone calls.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

This unannounced inspection took place on 05 January 2015 and was completed by one inspector.

At our previous inspection in July 2014 the provider was not in breach of any of the regulations we looked at.

Oakleigh Care Homes Limited provides accommodation for up to 27 people who require personal care. It is not registered to provide nursing care. At the time of our inspection there were 24 people living at the home accommodated in single occupancy rooms. This was at the choice of the provider.

The service had a registered manager in post. They had been a registered manager since April 2014. 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.

People told us they were safe living at the home. We found that there were a sufficient number of suitably qualified and trained staff employed at the home. The provider had a robust recruitment process in place which helped ensure that only the right staff were employed at the home.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. We found that the provider and staff were knowledgeable about when a request for a DoLS would be required. We found that no one living at the home needed to be deprived of their liberty to ensure their safety. Procedures were in place to monitor people’s safety to ensure that, when required, people were only deprived of their liberty when this was lawful and also in the least restrictive way. People who had limited capacity to make decisions were supported with their care and support needs with a capacity assessment to determine care in their best interest.

Staff respected people’s dignity and offered privacy at all times. People were provided with their care when this was required and people did not have to wait more than a few minutes for their call bells to be answered.

People’s assessed care needs were planned and met by staff who had a good understanding of how to meet these. All care records we looked at were detailed and provided staff with appropriate information to care for people in the right way. However, people at an increased risk of falls were not always safely supported to prevent further falls. This was because the provider had not always identified those people at an increased risk of falls.

People were supported to access a range of health care professionals. This included a GP and district nurses. People were consistently supported with their health care needs in a timely manner. Health risk assessments were in place to ensure that people were only exposed to risk where this was safe for them to do so.

People were provided with a varied menu and had a range of healthy options to choose from. There was a sufficient quantity of food and drinks available at all times and throughout the home.

Care was provided by staff in a caring and compassionate way. People’s hobbies and interests had been identified and staff supported people with their preferences. Hobbies and interests provided were based upon what was important to people.

The provider had an appropriate complaints procedure which all staff were aware of. People were supported to raise concerns. People who required an advocate were offered this support to speak up on their behalf. Action was taken to address people’s concerns and to prevent any potential for recurrence.

The provider used a variety of ways to assess the quality of care provided. People, relatives, staff and management were given every opportunity to identify areas for improvement and suggest ways to improve the care provided. Where people suggested improvements, these were implemented to improve the quality of care provided.

As the purpose of this inspection was to assess improvements made in relation to shortfalls identified during our previous review of compliance, undertaken in July 2013, we did not request information directly from people using the service on this occasion.

The main door was locked with a number lock to gain entry from the outside or by staff inside. People had their bedrooms locked if they wished but staff could gain entry in case of emergencies. The home was clean and tidy and there were no malodours. The home was cool even though the temperature outside was very warm. People looked happy and some were having their hair cut by the hairdresser.

People's clothes looked clean and people appeared well cared for.

One person said, "Staff will help if you need it. We can ask for anything." Another told us, "Staff are absolutely wonderful. They don't mind what bother they go to." People told us the food was, "...excellent” and "...get a big choice of food". During the inspection we saw that one person was having a cooked breakfast whilst another had opted for cereal and toast.

People told us there were activities and people came to entertain, although others said they could choose not to attend any activity if they wished.

One health professional told us that, "They do much more than residential." They stated that people were not sent to hospital at the end of their lives, if at all possible, and remained in the home to be cared for by staff they knew.

The purpose of this inspection was to assess improvements made in relation to shortfalls identified during our previous inspection undertaken on 26 June 2012. We did not request information directly from people using the service on this occasion. The concerns related to Outcome 9, Regulation 13 - Management of medication; Outcome 13, Regulation 21 Requirements relating to workers and Outcome 21, Regulation 20 Records.

We found the provider to be compliant on 8 November 2012 when we inspected.

During our inspection on 26 June 2012 people living in Oakleigh told us the staff were, " Ever so helpful" and another told us that they liked to be called by a nickname and said, " The staff call me it and I like that". One person said that staff were, "Patient and understanding". One family member who lived a distance away said, "It's brilliant here. I can't fault it. It means I don't have to worry".

One person told us that there was keep fit twice a week. They said that, "You can have a manicure. I love this colour", and that they listened to the TV as they had a visual impairment.