CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oak House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, with risk assessments, safety checks and enough staff. Inspectors asked the home to improve monitoring of communal areas and medicine stock levels.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care plans reflected their preferences. Staff supported nutrition, hydration and access to healthcare, although staff training records were not always clear.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team was visible, approachable and used audits, feedback and an improvement plan to monitor the service and make changes.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and well-led care, with some monitoring and medicines record issues to improve.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 28 February 2023. Inspectors reviewed Safe, Effective and Well-led. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional, observed care, and checked care, medicines and management records.
The home was rated Good in all three areas inspected. People were described as safe, supported by enough staff, and given their medicines as prescribed. Staff understood people's needs, followed professional advice and supported people with food, fluids and healthcare.
The inspection also found some areas needing attention. Communal areas were not always monitored, medicines stock checks were not regular enough, and some records were not clear or complete. The lift was being refurbished, so most people were spending time in their rooms during the visit.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published on 11 June 2022, to Good. Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were carried forward.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they trusted staff and felt safe. Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to report concerns.
“People and their relatives were confident the care and support provided kept people safe.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Call bells were answered promptly and staff supported people without rushing them.
“There were enough staff to support people's needs.” from the report
Good health support
The home worked with health and social care professionals and followed their advice. Referrals were made promptly when needed.
“There was clear evidence of staff working in partnership with other health and social care professionals, including GPs, district nurses, mental health teams and speech and language therapists.” from the report
Open management
The management team was visible and approachable. Regular audits, surveys and an improvement plan were used to check quality and act on issues.
“We observed the culture within the service was open and friendly.” from the report
Improvement since last inspection
The overall rating changed from Requires Improvement to Good. The kitchen's external environmental health rating also improved from one star to four.
“The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good based on the findings of this inspection.” from the report
Communal areas were not always monitored
needs fixingInspectors sometimes saw that staff were not monitoring communal areas. The manager said this needed further review.
“At times we saw the communal areas were not being monitored by staff.” from the report
Some records needed improvement
minorThe home did not record the correct settings for some pressure-relieving mattresses. Recruitment folders were disorganised, and one staff member's employment gaps could not be confirmed.
“There was no record of what the mattress settings should be for each person to ensure the most effective outcome.” from the report
Temporary loss of communal space
needs fixingThe lift was being refurbished and the main lounge was being decorated. Most people were therefore supported in their rooms during the inspection.
“While the passenger lift was being worked upon the majority of people had been confined to their bedrooms.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to ensure communal areas are regularly monitored by staff?
- 02How do you now check medicine stock levels and make sure staff report low or out-of-stock medicines promptly?
- 03How are pressure-relieving mattress settings recorded and checked for each person?
- 04How do you make sure people are checked regularly when they spend time in their rooms?
- 05What were the ratings for Caring and Responsive at the previous comprehensive inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 April 2023 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, June 2022
Oak House Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; improvements ended special measures, but inspectors were not yet assured that safer systems would stay effective.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 13 April 2022. Two inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment files, fire records, training records and quality checks.
The home had improved since its previous Inadequate rating. Inspectors found better risk assessments, enough staff, safer recruitment, safe medicines management, improved fire safety and better support with food, drinks and healthcare. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and people were generally receiving safe, personalised care.
The rating was still Requires Improvement for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Dust was found under some beds, there was no deep-cleaning schedule, and some care tasks were no longer recorded on the electronic system. Inspectors also said the improvements had not been in place long enough to show they would remain effective.
Risk management
Individual risks such as falls, choking, nutrition and skin care had been assessed and reviewed. Staff had clear information about required food and drink consistencies.
“People's individual risk assessments for their health and safety, which included the risk of falls, nutrition, bedrails, choking and skin care had been assessed and regularly reviewed to ensure they reflected people's current level of risk.” from the report
Staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff had time to respond to people and recruitment procedures had been strengthened.
“People received support from staff in sufficient numbers to meet their care and support needs safely.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were given safely and on time by trained staff whose competence had been checked. Storage, recording and audits were also described as safe.
“People received their prescribed medicines safely and on time from staff who had received training and had their competency assessed.” from the report
Personalised care and food
People had choices about their daily routines and meals. Staff understood individual dietary needs and sought professional advice when needed.
“People were receiving personalised care to meet their needs and they had a choice about how they spent their day.” from the report
Cleaning
needs fixingSome areas under beds had not been cleaned recently. The home did not have a deep-cleaning schedule covering all bedroom areas.
“This was because under some people's beds, we found they were dusty and had not recently been cleaned.” from the report
Improvements not yet established
needs fixingThe home had made changes, but the CQC had not seen enough time pass to know whether they would continue consistently.
“At the time of the inspection not enough time had passed for the changes made by the provider to have become embedded at the home.” from the report
- 01What deep-cleaning schedule is now in place, and how do you check that areas under beds are cleaned?
- 02Which care tasks are recorded on the electronic system now, and how do managers check completion when they are away from the home?
- 03What evidence can you show that the improvements in the service improvement plan have continued since the inspection?
- 04How will you check that the new pre-admission process works safely when a new person moves into the home?
- 05What is the current position on the ongoing decorating programme and the delayed passenger lift work?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; the other key-question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 June 2022 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 Care Home
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2022Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2021InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- February 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,020 to £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.