CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Oak Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, risks were assessed and managed, and there were enough staff to support people safely. Medicines, infection control, recruitment and accident monitoring were also found to be managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had detailed care plans, access to trained staff and support from health professionals. Inspectors found that people's nutrition, consent and legal rights were generally supported appropriately, but identified one problem with positioning and support during a meal.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions, their choices and routines were respected, and staff supported independence where possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was tailored to people's needs, preferences and routines. Visitors were welcomed and people had activities, but social stimulation was limited for some people who preferred to stay in their rooms.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an acting manager, a deputy and a clinical lead, with management cover available. Audits, meetings and action plans were used to monitor quality and make improvements.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Oak Lodge was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some improvements still needed.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit over two days. They spoke with people living in the home, visitors and staff. They observed care and meals, and checked care plans, staff records, medicines records and safety information.
People said they felt safe and were happy with the care. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable medicines systems and good support from nurses and other health professionals. Care was described as kind, respectful and personalised.
The home had good systems for reviewing care and planning improvements. Inspectors identified some issues, including limited social activity for people who stayed in their rooms, areas needing refurbishment and one person not being positioned safely for eating. Staff acted straight away when the eating concern was raised.
Kind staff
People and visitors described staff as kind, patient and respectful. Inspectors also saw warm and caring interactions.
“People praised the staff for their kindness and patience.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans described people's individual wishes, routines and support needs. Reviews took place with people and families each month.
“Care plans we looked at were comprehensive and gave clear details of the support people needed.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
The home had enough staff, completed recruitment checks and used trained staff for medicines. A nurse was always on duty.
“There were adequate numbers of staff to safely support people.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider used audits, meetings and action plans to identify shortfalls and track improvements.
“There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of care provided and to plan improvements.” from the report
Support during meals
needs fixingOne person who needed supervision and an upright position was found slumped in a chair, with the table poorly positioned. Staff acted immediately after inspectors raised this.
“On the first day of the inspection this person was slumped in their chair and their table was not in a good position to make eating comfortable.” from the report
Activities for people in rooms
needs fixingThe home had a weekly activity programme, but inspectors found limited social stimulation for people who preferred to stay in their rooms.
“Although there was a weekly activity programme there appeared to be limited social stimulation for people who preferred to stay in their rooms.” from the report
Refurbishment
minorSome parts of the building needed refurbishment. Bathroom work had started and further improvements were planned.
“Some areas of the home required refurbishment to ensure they provided a comfortable environment for people.” from the report
Registered manager
minorThere was no registered manager in post during the inspection. An acting manager was in place and had applied to register.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01What has been done to provide more social stimulation for people who prefer to stay in their rooms?
- 02How have you checked that people who need supervision or a particular position at mealtimes are being supported safely?
- 03Which areas have been refurbished since the inspection, and what work is still planned?
- 04Is there now a registered manager, or what is the current progress with the acting manager's application?
- 05What changes have been made following the complaint about communication with families and documentation?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe; it was the first inspection since the current provider registered the service. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 September 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 Lodge
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- October 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2017Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2016Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 July 2021.
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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“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.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.