OASIS West London Office

What inspectors found

From the Care Quality Commission's assessment published 9 September 2024 (assessment visit 28 March 2024). Quoted under the Open Government Licence.

1. Safe

   –No rating No rating

   We assessed 8 quality statements in the safe key question and identified 1 breach of legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment. The provider did not always assess risks to people's health and safety or had effective plans to mitigate them where identified. Care plans did not always have enough information in them to guide staff to manage risks and to care for people. However, there were effective systems in place to safely recruit staff. People’s medicines were managed safely. There were systems in place to monitor and manage complaints, accidents/incidents, and safeguarding concerns. People and relatives told us they felt safe and had no concerns regarding safety.

2. Effective

   –No rating No rating

   We assessed 6 quality statements in the effective key question and identified 1 breach of regulations in relation to consent to care and treatment. Staff were not knowledgeable about the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). The provider did not have evidence of following the MCA in relation to people who lacked capacity. However, people and relatives told us they were involved in care planning and reviews. Staff worked well with the local authority and health care professionals. Feedback from the local authority was very positive about the provider.

3. Caring

   GGood Good

   Care plans did not always have enough guidance in them for staff to follow. Daily care notes were not in enough detail and therefore it was difficult to establish how care was delivered to people. However, people and relatives told us staff were caring, kind and compassionate. Staff supported people to meet their cultural and religious needs.

4. Responsive

   GGood Good

   We assessed 7 quality statements in the responsive key question. We identified 1 breach of legal regulations, person centred care. There was very little information in care plans about people’s preferences, likes and dislikes. Most care plans did not have details about how people preferred to have their needs met. Staff guidance on meeting people’s needs was very vague or not recorded. However, staff were able to tell us how they would meet people’s needs. People and relatives were involved in providing feedback on a regular basis. The provider made referrals to other health care professionals regularly and as required. This helped to ensure people’s needs were met.

5. Well-led

   –No rating No rating

   We assessed 7 quality statements in the well-led key question and identified 1 breach of regulation, good governance. The provider’s audits and checks of the quality of care and other aspects of the service were not effective and had not identified the concerns we found during our assessment. However, staff, people and relatives told us they thought the service was managed well. People and relatives told us they could raise any concerns with the registered manager, and they would be addressed. Feedback from the local authority was positive about the provider and how they have managed and implemented improvements.