CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oak Manor
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infections, supporting safe admissions, using protective equipment safely and accessing testing. They also found suitable hygiene, distancing, visitor and outbreak arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 12 April 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control because of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found that the home had arrangements to prevent infections spreading. These included safe admissions, visitor controls, social distancing, effective use of protective equipment, testing, cleaning and hygiene measures.
Staff had received training on using protective equipment and hand hygiene. The home also carried out checks of staff practice and assessed which people were at higher risk.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall quality rating or a full rating across all five areas of care.
Safe admissions
The home had a process for admitting people safely and shared information about it with people and their families.
“The provider had a process in place to support safe admissions to the home.” from the report
Staff infection control training
Staff were trained in using protective equipment, hand washing and hygiene. The registered manager also checked staff practice.
“Additional hand washing and hygiene training had been completed with staff during the pandemic and competency checks had been undertaken” from the report
Risk assessments
The home identified people at higher risk and put extra measures in place where needed to reduce the impact of COVID-19.
“The provider had completed risk assessments to identify those who were at high risk and vulnerable.” from the report
Infection prevention arrangements
Inspectors were assured about visitor safety, distancing, protective equipment, testing, hygiene, outbreak management and the infection control policy.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now for visitors and new admissions?
- 02How do you train and check staff on using personal protective equipment and hand hygiene?
- 03How do you identify people who may be at higher risk and review the extra measures they need?
- 04How do you access testing and manage an infection outbreak?
- 05When was your infection prevention and control policy last updated, and what did your latest audit find?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 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, May 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, while noting a missed medicines signature and some recording gaps.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive responsive inspection on 15 and 16 March 2018. It followed concerns about continence care, medicines errors and food quality. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, observed care and meals, and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home received Good ratings in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems, personalised care plans, kind staff and a range of activities. They also found that people were involved in their care and could access health professionals when needed.
The concerns that prompted the inspection were not supported by the inspectors' findings. They found that food had recently improved and that medicines errors had been acted on without harm. There was one missed medicines signature and some gaps in recording, but these had been identified or did not alter the overall Good rating.
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found enough staff with different skills to meet people's assessed needs. Recruitment checks were also described as robust.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff, with varying skills on duty to support people with their assessed needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff spent time with people and communicated in a calm and respectful way. People were supported with privacy and dignity.
“We observed kind, caring engagement between staff and people who used the service.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs and preferences, and people and their families were involved in developing them.
“Care plans we looked at were person centred and showed that people and their families had been involved in their development.” from the report
Activities and interests
There was a full-time activities coordinator and activities were offered throughout the week. People could choose whether to take part.
“The provider employed a full time activities coordinator and staff offered activities over a seven day period.” from the report
Quality checks
The provider carried out checks on areas including care plans, medicines, health and safety and mattresses. Action plans were used when issues were found.
“Effective quality audits had been completed in various aspects of the service.” from the report
Missed medicines signature
minorOne medicines record did not have a signature. The home had found this through its own audit and had taken appropriate action.
“Within these records we found a missed signature. This had been identified within the homes own audit and had been acted on appropriately.” from the report
Some recording gaps
minorA visiting professional found that care plans generally reflected people's needs but that some recording was incomplete.
“Very person centred, and although there are a few gaps in recording, generally seem to reflect people's needs well.” from the report
- 01How are medicines records checked after a missed signature or other medicines error?
- 02What recording gaps were found in care plans, and how were they corrected?
- 03How is the food forum used to check whether people are happy with the meals now?
- 04How will relatives be encouraged to attend future relatives' meetings?
- 05Has the manager now completed their registration with CQC?
This was an unannounced comprehensive responsive inspection covering all five questions: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 May 2018 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 Manor
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 November 2017.
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 Central Bedfordshire
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. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
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.