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 used testing, vaccination checks, PPE, cleaning, social distancing and safe admission arrangements. The provider also said it had measures to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- 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, February 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 infection controls and visiting arrangements.
This was a targeted inspection on 27 January 2022. It looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and any staffing pressures linked to COVID-19. The visit was announced about 24 hours beforehand.
Inspectors found systems for testing, vaccinations, safe admissions, personal protective equipment and cleaning. They were assured that the home was following infection control guidance. The home also supported residents to keep in touch with visitors during isolation.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a full judgement on the quality of care across all five areas. It only reports what inspectors checked during this targeted visit.
Infection control
The home had PPE stations, cleaning arrangements, ventilation and staff training on using PPE. Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control guidance was being followed.
“We were assured that this service met good infection prevention and control guidelines as a designated care setting.” from the report
Visiting and social contact
Visitors were not restricted in number, although they had to book and take a test before entering. Video calls and residents' phones were available when people were isolating.
“The home had alternative methods to support social contact for visitors when residents were isolating.” from the report
Individual support
Each resident had a tailored support plan covering pandemic arrangements. These plans were reviewed every three months.
“Each resident had received a tailor made support plan which was reviewed on a three monthly basis.” from the report
Safe activities outside
The home supported residents to continue activities outside safely during the pandemic, using testing and supplies such as masks and hand sanitiser.
“The home had responded to peoples' choices and individual needs during the pandemic to help them carry out activities outside the home safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are COVID-19 testing, vaccination checks and PPE arrangements being managed now?
- 02How do visitors book visits, and what testing or other requirements apply?
- 03What happens if a resident needs to isolate, including how will they keep in contact with family?
- 04How would you manage a safe admission for a new resident, including testing, isolation and welfare checks?
- 05What measures are in place if COVID-19 causes staffing pressures?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19-related staffing pressures, so the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 February 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.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with minor improvements needed in medicines checks and care information.
This was an unannounced planned inspection on 25 February 2020. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, staff, a director, relatives and a health professional. Records, medicines, staffing, safety checks, complaints and quality audits were also reviewed.
People said they felt safe and liked living at the home. Inspectors found enough safely recruited staff, suitable risk assessments, clean premises, safe medicines management and good support with health care. Staff were described as kind, caring and well trained.
People had choice and control over their lives. They were supported to attend college, use community facilities, maintain relationships and take part in activities. The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
The report noted some areas for improvement. Medicines audits did not routinely include checking boxed medicine stocks against records. The home also needed to add more information about people's sexuality, relationships and oral health.
Safe support
Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and that staff understood safeguarding procedures. Risks were reviewed and managed while still allowing people to take positive risks.
“People were protected from the risk of harm, abuse and discrimination.” from the report
Kind staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw that staff knew people well and respected their dignity, choices and independence.
“People told us staff treated them well and they liked them.” from the report
Community life
People were supported to take part in different activities, including college, work experience, hobbies and community activities. The home supported people to live with choice and independence.
“People were very well supported to take positive risks and the service worked creatively to support people” from the report
Good oversight
The provider and local managers used regular audits, meetings and incident reviews. This helped the service identify actions and share learning.
“Provider level audits took place six monthly, and local management audits took place monthly.” from the report
Medicines audit
needs fixingThe medicines themselves were managed safely, but the monthly audit did not routinely check boxed medicine stocks against the administration records. The provider said it would add this check.
“We noted the monthly medicines audit did not routinely stipulate a check of stock of boxed medicines to MAR.” from the report
Care information
minorCare records contained little information about sexuality and relationships. The provider also said it would expand the information about people's oral health needs.
“We noted there was little information on people's sexuality and relationships.” from the report
- 01Have you introduced the extra check of boxed medicine stocks against medicine records?
- 02How do you record and support each person's wishes about relationships and sexuality?
- 03What extra information is now recorded about people's oral health needs?
- 04Who manages the home when the registered manager is away, and how can families contact senior support?
- 05How are people's views collected through key worker and resident meetings, and what changes have followed?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions; the previous rating was Good and all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 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
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 December 2010.
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 Enfield
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. 79 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Over the time he spent with them he got to know our parents very well and became like part of the family, even joining in family celebrations.”
“Charity would take Nan on holidays day trips and shopping adventures”
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.