CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oak House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Oak House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with small improvements still being developed.
This was a planned inspection on 7 May 2019. One inspector reviewed care records, staff files, audits and other records. They observed care, spoke with staff and relatives, and considered information from the provider and other professionals.
The home supported six people with learning disabilities and complex needs. Inspectors found people were safe, medicines were managed well, and there were enough trained staff. Care was kind, respectful and tailored to each person's communication, preferences and abilities.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home was also rated Good at the previous inspection in 2016. Inspectors noted improvements to care planning and quality checks since then.
Personalised support
The home shaped people's rooms, routines and support around their likes, abilities and sensory needs. Staff encouraged choice, independence and involvement.
“The service reflected the principals of Registering the Right Support guidance, providing person-centred care and support.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw warm and respectful interactions. Staff understood people's individual communication and support needs.
“The staff members' approach was consistently supportive, caring and inclusive.” from the report
Activities and independence
People were supported to enjoy varied activities, including community outings and hobbies. Equipment and communication aids helped people do more for themselves.
“People were enabled to participate in a very diverse range of activities.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff, recruitment checks were completed, and staff were trained before giving medicines. Medicines were audited and managed safely.
“People were provided with safe and appropriate support with their medicines, which were stored and managed safely.” from the report
Improved oversight
The home had regular audits, reports and meetings to monitor care and identify improvements. Inspectors found that these systems had improved since 2016.
“The service had improved upon the system of governance and audits seen at the last inspection in 2016.” from the report
Hoist and sling guidance
minorInspectors discussed adding more information to care plans about the loops to use when supporting people with hoists and slings. This was a minor documentation point rather than a reported incident of harm.
“We discussed with the registered manager that where people were supported to move round with the use of hoists and slings, including more information in their care plans about the loops to be used.” from the report
End of life plans
minorEnd of life plans contained people's preferences, but the home was still working to make them more detailed. The report says this work was being done sensitively.
“Work was ongoing to improve the detail in people's end of life plans and it was evident that this was being undertaken in a sensitive way.” from the report
- 01What extra information has now been added to care plans about the correct loops for each person's hoist and sling?
- 02How detailed are each person's end of life wishes and when are these plans reviewed?
- 03How would you support my relative's particular communication, sensory and physical needs?
- 04Which activities and community outings could my relative take part in, and how would their choices be recorded?
- 05How are staff trained and assessed to support people with complex needs and to give medicines safely?
This was a planned inspection of the whole service covering all five CQC questions; all five ratings remained Good from the 2016 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 July 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.
What inspectors found, November 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some checks not always recorded.
Inspectors visited without warning on 2 November 2016. They spoke with four people living at the home, four relatives and several staff. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment records and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People felt safe. Staff were trained and supervised, medicines were managed well, and people were supported with their health, choices, food and activities.
Inspectors saw warm relationships and care that reflected people's preferences and promoted independence. The home had improved since its previous Requires Improvement rating. Earlier concerns about staff training and protecting people from abuse or improper treatment had been addressed. Inspectors did note that some management checks were not always recorded.
People felt safe
People and relatives said the home was safe. Staff understood people's risks and knew how to report safeguarding concerns.
“People who used the service, relatives and staff all thought there were enough staff to help support people when they needed it.” from the report
Staff training had improved
The earlier problem with monitoring staff training had been addressed. Staff had induction, regular refresher training, supervision and appraisals.
“Regular updated and refresher training was provided to all staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw friendly relationships and a calm atmosphere. Staff supported privacy, dignity and independence.
“The relationships we saw between people who used the service and staff were warm and friendly. The atmosphere in the home was calm and relaxed.” from the report
Personalised activities
Support plans reflected people's likes, dislikes and preferred support. People took part in activities both at home and outside it.
“We saw people participated in such things as, horse riding, hydrotherapy and trampoline.” from the report
Some checks were not recorded
minorThe home had monitoring and audit systems, but not every check completed by the manager was recorded. Inspectors recommended that all checks should be clearly evidenced.
“We found when the home manager had carried out some checks, this was not always recorded.” from the report
- 01Are all management checks and audits now recorded clearly, including checks on medicines, support plans and health and safety?
- 02Did the home manager complete their CQC registration, and who is responsible for the home now?
- 03How many staff are usually on duty, and how is this matched to each person's appointments, activities and support needs?
- 04How are people's support plans reviewed when their health, communication needs or preferences change?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in decisions about care, complaints and activities?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 November 2016 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 House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 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 99 live-in carers within about an hour of Barnsley
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.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Ivy was very kind and gentle in all her dealings with my late mother. They got on very well and were able to share a joke and a laugh.”
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.