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.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks, including visitors, admissions, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection prevention and control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 16 March 2021. Inspectors checked how the home was preventing and controlling infection during the coronavirus pandemic.
The home had three people living there, with space for four people and one respite placement. Inspectors found strict entry checks, visiting arrangements, testing, protective equipment and cleaning systems.
The home was rated “Inspected but not rated”. This means the visit looked at infection prevention and control only. It was not a full inspection of the quality of care, and it does not give an overall Good or Requires Improvement rating.
Safe entry and visiting
The home used strict entry processes and arranged visits through booked slots for nominated relatives.
“Staff, relatives and healthcare professionals were required to follow strict processes to enter the home to prevent the introduction of infection.” from the report
Protective equipment and testing
There were ample supplies of protective equipment, with regular COVID-19 testing for staff and people living at the home.
“Stocks of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) were ample for staff, visitors and people to use.” from the report
Cleaning and infection control
Inspectors found regular cleaning, infection prevention training and an up-to-date policy that reflected new guidance.
“Robust cleaning regimes ensured the risk of infection transmission was reduced.” from the report
Reducing infection risks
Single bedrooms, social distancing and ventilation were used where possible to reduce the risk of infection.
“The use of single occupancy bedrooms, social distancing and where possible good ventilation reduced infection risk.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are the infection prevention arrangements described in this report being maintained now?
- 02What are the current arrangements for relatives to visit?
- 03How often are staff and residents tested for COVID-19, and what happens if there is a positive result?
- 04How do you manage new admissions and respite stays to prevent infection entering the home?
- 05Can you explain how the home checks that staff follow its infection prevention and control policy?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it was not a full inspection of the other quality areas and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 April 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, January 2020
Oak House was rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home was not always well-led and rated this area Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 4 December 2019. One inspector spoke with three people living at the home, two relatives and two staff members. They also observed care, checked records and looked at parts of the building.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were described as safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in activities. Staff were trained, knew people well and worked with health professionals.
The Well-led rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement. Quality checks had not found several problems, including weak checks on people's money, a faulty fire door, an incomplete staff health form and gaps in weight monitoring. The provider said it would address these issues.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives said staff were kind and respectful. Inspectors saw staff giving people time, choices and help that supported their dignity.
“People were supported by caring staff. Staff gave people their full attention.” from the report
Medicines support
Staff had medicine training and their competence was checked. Records showed prescribed medicines were available and electronic records helped monitor whether medicines had been given.
“The provider had invested in an electronic medicine system to enhance effectiveness and safety.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingThe provider had audits and checks, but these did not consistently identify several issues found during the inspection. This was the main reason the Well-led rating required improvement.
“several issues identified during the inspection had not been picked up by managerial observations or by in-house audits.” from the report
Fire door fault
seriousOne person's door did not shut properly. Inspectors said this could allow smoke and flames to spread if there were a fire.
“one person's door was not shutting correctly. This meant if a fire were to occur there was a risk of smoke and flame spread.” from the report
Money checks
needs fixingRecords showed that most transactions involving people's money had only one staff signature. Money was not counted between shifts, creating a risk to safeguarding people's money and protecting staff from allegations.
“Systems relating to the safekeeping of people's money were not effective as there was a lack of checking the money between shifts.” from the report
Weight monitoring
needs fixingPeople were weighed, but staff did not have guidance about each person's healthy weight range. This reduced the value of the checks and could make it harder to spot concerns.
“there were no assessments in place or systems available to inform staff the healthy weight range for each person.” from the report
- 01What new checks are now used to make sure fire doors are working and other safety issues are found quickly?
- 02How are people's money and every transaction now checked between staff shifts?
- 03What system is now used to record each person's healthy weight range and respond to weight changes?
- 04How do managers check that medicine procedures are followed and all medicines received are recorded?
- 05What changes have been made since the Well-led rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions; Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive stayed Good, while Well-led fell to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 January 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.
Every inspection of Oak House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 September 2016.
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 Dudley
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. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“Knowing Mum was in Corina's care made an enormous difference to us and we knew she was in safe hands.”
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.