Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Dalvington/The Oaks

Goodpublished 25 January 2024, 2 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
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.
The latest report, explained

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.

What inspectors praised
  • 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
What inspectors were concerned about

Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.

Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How will you make sure my relative's risk assessments stay up to date when their health or support needs change?
  2. 02What checks are made on medicines, including emergency medicines given when needed?
  3. 03How are incidents and safeguarding concerns reviewed, and how do you make sure lessons are acted on?
  4. 04How will the recent change in management affect my relative's day-to-day care and who should the family contact?
  5. 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.

An earlier report, explained

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.

What inspectors praised
  • 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
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Staffing levels

    serious

    Staff 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

    serious

    Risk 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

    serious

    Mental 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

    serious

    The 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 fixing

    Some 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 fixing

    Although 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
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How many staff are now scheduled in each house at weekends, and how do you cover emergencies, personal care and meals?
  2. 02How do you make sure every person's risk assessment includes their specialist equipment and changing needs?
  3. 03Have all mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions been completed and reviewed, and can we see how they are recorded?
  4. 04How do you check that people receive all of their planned one-to-one care?
  5. 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Dalvington/The Oaks

5 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.

  1. January 2024Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Dalvington/The Oaks →

  2. October 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Dalvington/The Oaks →

  3. August 2019Requires improvementdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. March 2017Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. March 2015Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. July 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. June 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. October 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. August 2011

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

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.”
Brian G., about Chris M.
“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”
Katrina O., about Sekai M.
See live-in carers near WorcestershireProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.