CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Dalvington/The Oaks
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risk assessments, staffing, recruitment, medicines and infection control were found to be managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- This inspection report does not give a rating or detailed findings for Effective.
- Caring?
- Good
- This inspection report does not give a rating or detailed findings for Caring.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This inspection report does not give a rating or detailed findings for Responsive.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open culture, effective governance systems and a clear focus on improvement. People, relatives and staff were involved in the running of the service.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Dalvington/The Oaks was rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care and improved management systems.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 and 11 December 2023. One inspector observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, staffing was sufficient and medicines were managed safely. People were supported to make choices and receive visitors without restrictions.
The inspection was partly prompted by concerns about restrictive practices. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from this concern. The previous rating was Requires Improvement in October 2020, but improvements had been made and the home was no longer in breach of regulations.
Safety and safeguarding
Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities and reported concerns to the relevant agencies. Risk assessments had been improved and reflected specialist guidance.
“Staff were clear about their responsibility to safeguard people from abuse, and we saw examples where concerns had been reported to the relevant agencies” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored and given as prescribed. Records were checked weekly, and inspectors found no errors.
“There was a system to check medicines and medicine records on a weekly basis and no errors were found during the inspection.” from the report
Choice and positive relationships
People were supported to make choices and were cared for in a warm and person-centred way. Staff spent time talking with people and supporting activities.
“There was a positive and open culture at the service. The provider had systems to provide person-centred care that achieved good outcomes for people.” from the report
Improved leadership
Management and quality monitoring had improved since the previous inspection. The new management arrangements were supported by regular communication and governance meetings.
“The service had effective governance and management systems.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you make sure my relative's risk assessments stay up to date when their health or support needs change?
- 02What checks are made on medicines, including emergency medicines given when needed?
- 03How are incidents and safeguarding concerns reviewed, and how do you make sure lessons are acted on?
- 04How will the recent change in management affect my relative's day-to-day care and who should the family contact?
- 05How do you support each person to have choice, independence, activities and access to visitors?
This was an unannounced inspection focused on Safe and Well-led, prompted partly by concerns about restrictive practices; the report does not provide current ratings for the other three questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 January 2024 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, October 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks around staffing, care planning and management checks, with a continued breach of governance rules.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 6 and 11 August 2020. Two inspectors spoke with staff, relatives and health professionals. They observed care and reviewed care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home had made some improvements since its previous inspection, but it was still not consistently safe or well managed. Inspectors found that staffing levels were not always enough, some risks were not fully assessed, and people were not always supported in line with the Mental Capacity Act.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall, and also Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. The report says there was an increased risk that people could be harmed. The other three areas were not assessed during this focused inspection.
Medicines systems
Inspectors found that medicines were received, stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff had medicines training and their competence was checked.
“Medicines were received, stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Infection-control arrangements
The home had infection-control procedures, visitor guidance and hand wash available during the Covid-19 pandemic.
“There were systems in place to prevent and control infection for staff to follow good practice guidelines.” from the report
Positive relatives' views
Relatives told inspectors they were positive about the care and generally felt their family members were safe.
“Relatives were positive about how their family members were cared for.” from the report
Work with professionals
The manager worked with health and social care professionals to support people's needs.
“The registered manager worked with other health and social care professionals such as speech and language therapists and community learning disability nurses to support people's needs.” from the report
Staffing levels
seriousStaff said there were not always enough people on duty, particularly at weekends. This could affect personal care, meals and the response to emergencies.
“Staff did not feel there were always enough of them on shift to support the people who lived at the home, particularly at weekends.” from the report
Incomplete risk planning
seriousRisk assessments did not cover all aspects of people's needs. Inspectors found missing guidance for specialist equipment and a missing part of another person's equipment.
“Risks assessments were in place and reviewed monthly, however we found they did not cover all aspects of people's needs to help keep them safe.” from the report
Mental Capacity Act records
seriousMental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were not completed to show that the correct process had been followed. The provider said these would be completed again and staff would receive training.
“The mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were not completed to confirm the Mental Capacity Act had been followed and correct decisions had been made.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousThe provider's checks did not reliably identify failures in incident reporting, staffing arrangements, safety reviews or staff training. This led to a continued breach of Regulation 17.
“At this inspection we found not enough improvement had been made and the provider was still in breach of Regulation 17, as the provider's quality checking systems and practices required further improvement.” from the report
Concerns about speaking up
needs fixingSome staff said they felt unable to raise concerns without being penalised. Inspectors asked the provider to investigate these comments.
“Some staff felt they were supported by the registered manager, but others stated they felt they could not raise concerns for fear of being penalised.” from the report
PPE practice
needs fixingAlthough staff were seen wearing masks, one staff member serving food was not wearing gloves and an apron. The manager said staff would be reminded about the guidance.
“We saw a staff member serving people's food not wearing gloves and aprons.” from the report
- 01How many staff are now scheduled in each house at weekends, and how do you cover emergencies, personal care and meals?
- 02How do you make sure every person's risk assessment includes their specialist equipment and changing needs?
- 03Have all mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions been completed and reviewed, and can we see how they are recorded?
- 04How do you check that people receive all of their planned one-to-one care?
- 05What has changed in your quality checks since inspectors found missed incident reports, overdue safety reviews and gaps in staff training?
This was a focused follow-up inspection of Safe and Well-led; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not assessed and no ratings were given for them. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 October 2020 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 Dalvington/The Oaks
5 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2024Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 2011.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Worcestershire
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.