CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Oak Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about PPE, testing, visitors, social distancing and safe admissions. They were only somewhat assured about outbreak planning, staff-room arrangements, medicines training and the infection-control policy.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found several infection-control measures in place but raised concerns about staff rooms, medicines training and policy updates.
This was a targeted inspection after concerns about infection prevention and control, including large outbreaks at other services on the same site. The visit took place on 20 January 2021, with feedback given on 1 February 2021.
Inspectors found good practice in the use of personal protective equipment, visitor safety plans, social distancing, testing and the home's layout. They also found risk assessments for people using the service and staff.
The inspectors were only somewhat assured about some infection-control arrangements. They raised concerns about cleaning staff rooms between breaks, the number of staff taking breaks together, training about infection prevention when giving medicines, and an out-of-date policy.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report gives findings about the targeted area, but it does not give an overall quality rating or a full rating for all five questions.
PPE and visitor safety
Staff were assessed as competent when putting on and removing PPE. When visits were allowed, the home used a safe-to-visit plan and a designated visiting area.
“Staff were assessed as competent in the donning and doffing of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE)” from the report
Safer layout
The layout allowed people to enter and leave bedrooms without passing through the main part of the home. Fire doors and staff cohorts were also used to reduce risks.
“All bedrooms had ensuite facilities and exterior exits to allow entrance and exit from rooms without going through the main body of the home.” from the report
Risk assessments
Risk assessments had been completed for people using the service and staff, with extra assessments for more vulnerable groups when needed.
“Appropriate risk assessments had been completed for everyone using the service and staff.” from the report
Testing and social distancing
Inspectors were assured that the home was accessing testing and making efforts to support social distancing.
“We were assured the provider was accessing testing for people using the service and staff.” from the report
Staff break areas
needs fixingInspectors found that staff rooms were not being cleaned between breaks and that too many staff could take breaks together. This could increase the risk of infection spreading.
“We had initial concerns around the safety of staff rooms including the lack of the cleaning of the room between staff breaks” from the report
Medicines-related infection training
needs fixingTraining about infection prevention when staff administered medicines was not robust enough. The registered manager was directed towards resources to improve the approach.
“The training provided to staff specifically around the assurance of infection prevention when administering medicines, had not been robust.” from the report
Policy needed updating
needs fixingThe infection-control policy contained new information added onto the existing policy rather than a full review and update. Inspectors said this could cause confusion.
“We found new information had been added to the policy rather than reviewed and amended which could lead to confusion.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to clean staff rooms between every break?
- 02How do you limit the number of staff taking breaks together?
- 03What infection-prevention training do staff now receive when administering medicines?
- 04Has the infection-prevention policy and its risk assessment been fully reviewed and updated?
- 05How do you check that the changes described to inspectors are still being followed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; the service was inspected but not rated and the other questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 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, March 2019
Oak Court was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 29 January 2019. They observed care and conversations, spoke with people, managers and staff, and reviewed care files, recruitment records and management checks.
They found that people were safe and supported by enough suitable staff. Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. Staff understood safeguarding, risks were assessed, and the home was clean and hygienic.
People received personalised care and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. They were supported to make choices, maintain independence, enjoy activities and receive suitable food, drink and healthcare.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The rating stayed the same as at the previous inspection, and inspectors found no serious risks or concerns.
Personalised care
Care plans described each person's needs, strengths and aspirations. People were supported to make choices and build their independence.
“Care plans were personalised and described the holistic care and support each person required, together with details of their strengths and aspirations.” from the report
Safe medicines
Inspectors found medicines were stored, administered and recorded properly. Staff were trained and their competence was checked.
“Staff also adhered to robust procedures for ordering, disposing, administering and recording medicines for people in the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People said staff were caring and listened to them. Inspectors saw that privacy, dignity, independence and human rights were respected.
“People told us that staff were caring and consistently treated them with kindness, compassion, empathy and respect.” from the report
Support for independence
The home offered activities and practical support that helped people follow their interests and become more independent.
“For example, some people told us they enjoyed the breakfast club and we noted that some people were now able to prepare their own breakfasts independently.” from the report
Strong oversight
Managers and staff understood their responsibilities. Regular audits and feedback were used to monitor and improve the service.
“The service had effective systems and procedures in place to monitor and assess the quality of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and review my relative's individual care, rehabilitation and independence goals?
- 02What specialist support is available for neurological conditions, including catheter care, diabetes management or brain injuries?
- 03How would you support my relative's communication needs if they needed pictures, objects or a communication passport?
- 04How do you make sure staffing levels and one-to-one support remain suitable for each person's needs?
- 05How are families involved in care reviews, complaints and decisions about activities or end-of-life care?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five key questions, including the accommodation and nursing or personal care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 March 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 Oak Court
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 September 2014.
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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.