Old Station House provides residential care for up to 43 older people. At the time of our visit the home was fully occupied. At our last inspection on 5 August 2014 the service was rated as Good. At this inspection, we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated good:

People mostly remained safe living in the home. The service had not always followed policies and procedures around recording of medicines. The service immediately put measures in place to address this issue. We have made a recommendation about the recording of medicines.

The registered manager had effective procedures for ensuring that any concerns about people’s safety were appropriately managed and reported. Risk assessments were appropriately assessed, managed and reviewed.

There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and staff had time to spend with people. 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.

People continued to receive effective care from staff that had the skills and knowledge to support them and meet their needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the procedures in the service supported this practice.

People were supported to access health professionals when needed and staff worked closely with people's G.P's to ensure their health and well-being was monitored.

People told us they were happy with the care and support they received at the service and valued the relationships they had with staff.

People’s care needs were accurately recorded with clear guidance for care staff to follow on how to support them. 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 in line with the policy.

People’s emotional wellbeing was considerably enhanced due to a highly motivated activities team which involved the local community and volunteers. People had the choice of many activities taking place within the home and also lots of trips out. This was helped by the volunteers assisting with trips out. We heard high praise from people about enjoying their life by having a wealth of activities and outings to take part in. We heard that people’s lives had been improved by feeling involved and included.

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, analysing and auctioning regular audits. People’s opinions were sought and acted upon to improve the service. Regular meetings with people took place to gain their views.

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.

We spent time talking with ten people, all expressed their satisfaction with the care they had received. Five people had moved into the home from Mayott House, which had closed, the previous week. One person told us "I liked living at Mayott house and didn't want to leave, but I was able to visit this home before moving in and some of the other people and staff had also come here".

Staff that we spoke with told us staffing levels had greatly improved since some staff from Mayott House had been transferred to the home. At the time of the inspection carried out on a Sunday, the manager and head of care were on duty in addition to a care leader and six care staff, and supported by a team of catering and housekeeping staff. The manager told us she and the head of care were on duty, in order to support people who had moved into the home during the previous week.

We spent time with people who told us they felt safe because their concerns would be taken seriously by the care or senior staff. One person told us "I feel safe because the staff spent time asking am I alright". Another person told us "I feel safe because there are certain staff that I feel I could speak to". Another person told us "my family pop in at various times of the day, If I am unhappy or unsafe then my family would speak to the person in charge".

One person told us "if I had a complaint about the food, then I would speak to the staff. If it was serious, then I would speak to my family".

The people who used the service and their representatives that we spoke with told us that staff were helpful and knew people's needs well. They also told us that they felt safe and knew that they could approach the manager about any concerns they had. The staff we spoke to told us that they received good support from the provider, manager and senior staff as well as regular training to do their job well. Our review of records showed that care plans were reviewed regularly and that individual needs and preferences were identified. We saw that food and fluids were readily available in sufficient quantity and quality. Some people who use the service did not always like the food, but staff were happy to offer alternatives. People told us that they received enough to eat and drink, however, we found that records to monitor the intake of food and fluid for people at most risk were not effectively completed, which may put people at risk of malnutrition or dehydration.

People that use the service said that they were happy living at Old Station House and that staff were helpful and kind. People said that they received the health care that they needed and were able to register with the GP practice of their choice. People told us that they were involved in planning their care and that they would speak to the manager or member of staff if they had a concern or complaint. People who use the service stated that their views and opinions were sought from the provider and other officials who visited the home. We told that the flats were kept clean and that the meals were of a high standard and that there were always enough staff on duty to cater for their needs.