CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 82 Lower Oldfield Park
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control arrangements but some PPE and record-keeping needed improvement.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 4 February 2021. It looked at how well the home was preventing and controlling infection during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found the home was clean, people were positive about their support, and systems were in place for testing, visitors, social distancing and managing an outbreak. They were assured about most areas of infection prevention and control.
There were some gaps. Staff needed a refresher on using all levels of PPE. Cleaning of high-touch areas needed review, and visitor temperature checks were not always recorded. The home said it would make these improvements.
Clean home
The home was clean and smelt fresh. Staff supported people to help keep it clean, including bedrooms.
“The home was clean and smelt fresh throughout.” from the report
Testing arrangements
Staff had regular COVID-19 testing, including daily lateral flow tests before work. People were also tested when they consented.
“COVID-19 testing had been carried out regularly for staff including daily lateral flow tests prior to the staff coming into work.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The home had plans to identify risks and manage an outbreak. The manager had sought advice from other organisations and specialist sources.
“Systems were in place to identify risks and plan for an outbreak.” from the report
PPE knowledge needed refreshing
needs fixingStaff were not regularly using all levels of PPE and needed to refresh their knowledge. The manager arranged further support after the inspection.
“Staff were not regularly using all levels of PPE to meet the needs of people.” from the report
High-touch cleaning frequency
needs fixingThe home had not yet reviewed whether high-touch areas needed cleaning more often because of new COVID-19 strains. The manager reviewed this after the inspection.
“Consideration had not been made about increasing the frequency of cleaning high touch areas in light of new COVID-19 strains.” from the report
Visitor temperature records
minorVisitors had their temperatures checked, but this was not recorded for everyone. The manager said this would be put in place immediately.
“However, temperatures were not being recorded for everyone to demonstrate it was happening.” from the report
- 01What refresher training have staff had on using all levels of PPE, and when was it completed?
- 02How often are high-touch areas cleaned now?
- 03Are visitor temperature checks recorded for every visitor?
- 04What further changes were made to signage and plans for separating people if there is an outbreak?
- 05How are people tested for COVID-19 when they do not consent to testing, and what risk assessments are used?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it was not a full inspection of all five questions and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 March 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, September 2017
Bath MIND - 82 Lower Oldfield Park was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 29 July 2017. One inspector spoke with three people and three staff, looked at two care records and checked records about medicines, training, audits and how the home was managed. The registered manager was not present, but senior staff supported the inspection.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable medicines arrangements, risk assessments, trained staff and access to health professionals.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff knew people's preferences well, care plans reflected individual needs, and people could choose activities and how they spent their time. The home had systems to gather feedback, monitor quality and plan improvements.
The home had also been rated Good at its previous inspection. Inspectors said it continued to meet all relevant fundamental standards.
Enough staff
Staffing was planned flexibly around people's daily needs, appointments and activities. The report says shortages were covered by bank staff when needed.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff understood people's individual preferences and care plans described how support should be given. People and relatives were involved in care planning.
“The plans clearly specified people's preferences and individual needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
Inspectors saw staff checking on people's welfare, offering private one-to-one time and encouraging independence. People were treated with dignity.
“We observed that staff universally demonstrated a kind, caring and compassionate attitude towards people using the service.” from the report
Choice and activities
People could choose how to spend their time and take part in activities linked to their interests and independence.
“People had access to activities they wanted to take part in.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used feedback, staff meetings and audits covering areas such as medicines, care plans, training, maintenance and fire safety.
“To ensure continuous improvement the registered manager and provider conducted regular audits to monitor and check the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you keep each person's care plan up to date and involve them and their relatives in reviews?
- 02How do you make sure there are enough staff for appointments, activities and any unexpected staff shortages?
- 03What activities are currently available, and how are they chosen by the people living here?
- 04How do you check that medicines are stored, given and recorded safely?
- 05How do staff receive training, supervision and support for the specific needs of people living here?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the overall and each individual rating remaining Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 September 2017 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of 82 Lower Oldfield Park
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 December 2010.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
25 live-in carers within about an hour of Bath and North East Somerset
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,030 to £1,320 a week. 20 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She enabled mum to lead a high quality life in her own home until the very end and Lena and her family became close personal friends to me and my family.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.