CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oak Field
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic review.
Inspectors visited the home on 16 October 2020. This was an announced, targeted inspection looking at infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
They found that visitors were limited, screened for symptoms and temperature, and usually met in a separate building in the garden. Staff had infection control training and used protective equipment appropriately.
The inspectors were assured that the home was managing visiting, social distancing, admissions, testing, hygiene and possible outbreaks safely. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Visitor safety
The home limited visitors, checked their temperatures and asked about symptoms and recent travel. Visitors usually met in a separate, comfortable building in the garden.
“Staff checked the temperature of all visitors on arrival and asked whether they had any symptoms of covid19 or had travelled to any high-risk areas recently.” from the report
Staff infection control training
All staff received infection control training, including how to put on and remove PPE. Staff followed suitable infection control guidance.
“All staff received training in infection control and the registered manager regularly discussed best practice with staff to keep their knowledge up to date.” from the report
Broad infection controls
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements covering social distancing, admissions, testing, hygiene and the prevention or management of outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your visitor and infection control arrangements changed since the inspection on 16 October 2020?
- 02How are visitors currently screened and where do visits take place?
- 03How often do staff receive infection control and PPE training now?
- 04What arrangements are in place for testing residents and staff?
- 05What is the home's latest full inspection rating for areas not covered by this targeted inspection?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; it did not assess the other four questions or provide an overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 November 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, April 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but identified some medicines, window safety and record-checking shortfalls.
This was an unannounced inspection of the home. One inspector visited and spoke with people, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, staff files, medicines records and other records about how the home was run. Feedback was also sought from health and social care professionals and a volunteer visitor.
The home supported up to seven people with learning disabilities and six people were living there at the time. Inspectors found systems to protect people from abuse, manage risks and support safe medicines use. Staff numbers were suitable, the home was clean and people were supported with food, health care and activities.
Inspectors found staff were kind, respectful and understood people's preferences. Care plans were detailed and personalised. The home supported people's independence, relationships, communication and end of life choices. Complaints were investigated and the management team monitored the quality of care.
The overall rating was Good, as were all five areas inspected. The home remained Good overall since the previous inspection in September 2015. Responsive care had previously been rated Outstanding, but it was now Good because CQC's characteristics for an Outstanding rating had changed.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors found staff understood people well and spent meaningful time with them. People were supported with dignity, privacy and choice.
“People were cared for by staff who were kind and caring.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans included people's needs, history, preferences, interests and goals. Staff used them to support people in the way they wanted.
“People's care plans were person-centred and detailed.” from the report
Meaningful activities
Each person had an activity programme based on their interests. Staff supported people with trips, holidays and daily activities.
“Each person had an individualised activity programme in place based on their own interests and staff supported people to access various activities daily.” from the report
Good health support
The home worked with health professionals and responded to changing health needs. Staff supported people with appointments, dietary needs and specialist advice.
“People were supported to maintain their health.” from the report
Open management
The management team communicated with people, relatives and staff. Regular audits and action plans were used to monitor and improve the service.
“Leadership was visible and staff were clear of their roles and responsibilities.” from the report
Window safety
seriousInspectors identified a possible risk of falling from height through an unrestricted window. Other window restrictors also opened further than recommended guidance.
“we identified people may be at risk of falls from height though an unrestricted window.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment records
needs fixingFor one staff member, the home did not have a completed application form or health declaration. This meant it lacked a record of that person's qualifications, experience and possible reasonable adjustments.
“However, for one staff member the provider had not ensured they completed an application form and health declaration as part of their recruitment checks.” from the report
Infection control monitoring
needs fixingSome mop heads touched each other and the floor, increasing the risk of contamination. Inspectors also said infection control audits could be improved.
“mops were not stored carefully and we observed some mop heads were touching each other and the floor which increased the risk of contamination.” from the report
Staff competency checks
needs fixingAlthough staff competencies were assessed, the people carrying out those assessments had not been trained for the assessor role.
“the provider did not train the competency assessors to ensure they had the required skill set to assess other staff.” from the report
- 01What action was taken to check medicine stocks for medicines that are not kept in a monitored dispensing box?
- 02Have all window restrictors been reviewed and adjusted where needed to reduce the risk of falls?
- 03How do you now make sure every staff member has complete application and health declaration records?
- 04Who carries out staff competency assessments, and what training have they received for this role?
- 05What changes have been made to mop storage and infection control audits?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with records reviewed for two people, three staff files and medicines records for all people. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 April 2018 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 Field
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 March 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 Croydon
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 £1,230 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.