CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oadby
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, effective safeguarding systems, risk assessments and safe medicines procedures. The environment was clean and infection control procedures were being followed.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans had been reviewed and personalised. People were supported with nutrition, hydration, healthcare, training and goals such as cooking, money management and independence.
- Caring?
- Requires improvement
- No separate Caring rating or detailed Caring findings were given in this report.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- No separate Responsive rating or detailed Responsive findings were given in this report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective quality checks, clearer communication and good oversight. People, relatives, staff and professionals were encouraged to give feedback.
What inspectors found, September 2020
Heathcotes (Oadby) was rated Good; inspectors found safer staffing, better records and person-centred support, with the home larger than recommended guidance.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 8 September 2020. One inspector spoke with two people using the service, five staff members, two relatives and a social care professional. They also reviewed two care plans and other records.
The home was rated Good overall for the areas inspected: Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safer medicines systems, good infection control and improved care plans. People were supported with food, drink, healthcare, activities and making their own choices.
The home supports up to eight people with learning disabilities, autism, Asperger's syndrome and behaviours that challenge. It is larger than recommended by best practice guidance, but inspectors said its design and the way people were supported reduced the impact of this.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published in August 2019, with four breaches of regulation. Inspectors found enough improvement had been made and that the home was no longer in breach.
Enough staff
Staffing levels had been increased and rotas showed they were consistent. Inspectors saw enough staff to provide one-to-one support, including in the community.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Person-centred support
People were involved in their care, daily plans and decisions about the home. Staff supported independence, choice and community access.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives” from the report
Improved care planning
Care plans had been reviewed, updated and personalised. They included people's current needs, goals and aspirations, with records of progress.
“Care plans had been reviewed, updated and personalised to ensure they reflected people's current needs, goals and aspirations.” from the report
Better management checks
The provider used checks on care records, medicines, staff records and staff practice to identify and make improvements.
“The provider had effective quality assurance systems in place.” from the report
Larger than recommended
minorThe home accommodates eight people, which is larger than recommended by best practice guidance. Inspectors said the building design and the way support was provided reduced the negative impact.
“The service is larger than recommended by best practice guidance.” from the report
One DoLS condition not met
needs fixingStaff could not comply with a condition on one person's legal restriction because of COVID-19 risks. The manager contacted the relevant agencies and recorded best-interest decisions.
“Staff had been unable to comply with a condition in one person's DoLs due to risks associated with COVID-19.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure the larger size of the home does not reduce privacy, choice or individual support?
- 02How are staffing levels adjusted when people's needs change or when someone new moves in?
- 03How do you support each person to manage distress and behaviours that challenge, and how do you review any physical or chemical restraint?
- 04How do you monitor food and fluid intake, including when someone refuses a meal or has a risk of choking?
- 05Which improvements from the previous Requires Improvement inspection are being checked and sustained now?
This planned reinspection rated Safe, Effective and Well-led; separate Caring and Responsive ratings were not given in the report. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 September 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.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks around staffing, nutrition, personalised care and management.
Inspectors visited on 17 and 18 June 2019. The first visit was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with people, staff, relatives and professionals, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home supported eight people with learning disabilities, autism, Asperger's syndrome and challenging behaviour. Inspectors found that staffing was sometimes too low to provide required one-to-one support. This affected people's safety, meals, activities and opportunities to go out.
People on special diets were not always given suitable food or enough support to eat and drink safely. Inspectors also found gaps in training, person-centred care, dignity, complaints handling and quality checks. The home was rated Requires Improvement in all five areas and overall.
The previous rating was Good, published in November 2017. After this inspection, the provider said it had increased monitoring of diets and staffing. CQC asked for an action plan and said it would monitor progress and return for another inspection.
Kind staff
People and relatives said staff were kind, friendly and caring. Inspectors also observed a gentle interaction that helped a person relax.
“The care staff were kind towards people. A person told us, "Nice staff.” from the report
Medicines usually managed safely
People generally received their medicines as prescribed, and the main medicine systems were organised. A record error was corrected immediately when inspectors raised it.
“Medicine systems were organised, and people received their medicines when they should and as prescribed by their GP.” from the report
Clean environment
Bedrooms, bathrooms and shared areas were clean. Staff had infection control training and protective equipment was available.
“People's rooms, bathrooms and communal areas were clean, which reduced the risk of infections spreading.” from the report
Support with healthcare
People had health action plans and were supported to attend community healthcare appointments. Annual GP health checks were arranged.
“People had health action plans in place which detailed their individual health support needs, as well as records of visits to specialist and community healthcare services.” from the report
Homely and adapted setting
People had personalised bedrooms. The home had a sensory room, an enclosed garden and a self-contained flat for developing independent living skills.
“The care home had a 'homely' feel in the communal areas.” from the report
Staffing and one-to-one support
seriousThere were insufficient staff on 20 days in a six-week period. Required one-to-one support was missed, limiting activities and putting people at risk.
“There were not always enough care staff to meet people's assessed support needs.” from the report
Specialised diets
seriousSome people were given food that was not prepared as advised and did not always receive enough suitable food or supplements. This created risks of choking and malnutrition.
“People on specialised diets were not always supported to eat and drink safely or maintain a balanced diet.” from the report
Person-centred activities
needs fixingDaily routines and activities were not consistently structured or delivered. Independent living goals were not regularly used by staff.
“People did not always receive personalised care which met their needs.” from the report
Training and health support
needs fixingNot all staff had completed the training needed for people's conditions. Staff did not always seek medical advice promptly when specialised diet problems occurred.
“Care staff told us they did not always receive the training needed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Dignity and complaints
needs fixingA person's dignity was not maintained when a medical device was visible. Complaints were sometimes handled informally without a recorded or formal response.
“However, people's privacy and dignity was not always maintained.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
seriousAudits did not identify serious problems such as a person not eating for more than 24 hours or missing supplements. This meant management did not consistently turn concerns into improvements.
“The systems and processes in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the services provided were not fully or consistently effective.” from the report
- 01How will you guarantee the one-to-one staffing written into my relative's care plan, including support to go out and take part in activities?
- 02How do you prepare and monitor specialised diets, food supplements, food intake and weight?
- 03Which staff have completed training relevant to my relative's condition, including autism, epilepsy or other specific health needs?
- 04How will you provide structured daily activities and support my relative's independent living goals?
- 05How are complaints recorded, formally answered and checked to make sure they lead to improvements?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including care and the home environment; the first visit was unannounced and the second was announced. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 August 2019 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 Oadby
5 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- August 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 November 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leicestershire
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with life.”
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.