CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oak Mount Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staffing, recruitment, medicines, risk management and accident reviews were generally well managed, although a water safety risk assessment and a fire risk assessment review needed attention.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received health care, suitable food and support from trained staff. One best-interest decision was not recorded correctly, and staff appraisals had not taken place, but the provider addressed the recording issue and updated its supervision policy.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were consistently kind, patient and respectful. People were involved in daily choices, had privacy, and were encouraged to remain independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences and changing needs. The home offered activities, communication support, community access, complaints information and compassionate end-of-life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team used audits, surveys and informal feedback to monitor the service. Staff felt supported, and issues found during the inspection were dealt with promptly.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, with some records and safety checks needing improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 22 and 23 August 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, risk assessments, recruitment records and the home's management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives were very positive about the care. Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, dignity and patience, and supporting people to make choices and stay as independent as possible.
The home had enough staff, managed medicines safely and responded to health needs. It offered home-cooked food, activities and support for family visits and end-of-life care. Some issues were found during the inspection, including incomplete recording of a best-interest decision, a toilet that needed more cleaning and safety assessments that needed updating. These were addressed or being addressed during or after the inspection.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives were very positive about staff. Inspectors observed compassionate support, respect for privacy and care delivered at people's own pace.
“People and relatives consistently told us they were very happy with the care and support they and their loved ones received.” from the report
People's choices
People were involved in everyday decisions about food, routines, activities and where they spent their time. Staff encouraged independence.
“There was an exceptionally strong person-centred culture within the home.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines were stored and given safely, including time-critical medicines. Recruitment checks were in place and staff generally felt there were enough people on duty.
“Medicines were managed and administered safely.” from the report
Personalised activities and communication
Care plans included people's life histories and preferences. Staff used pictures, large print and other aids, and offered activities at home and in the community.
“Staff understood people's individual communication needs and had a range of communications aids to assist people with their understanding.” from the report
Support for families
Visitors were welcomed, and relatives were involved in daily life. The home also supported relatives during end-of-life care.
“Relatives were offered meals and accommodation so they could stay with their loved ones.” from the report
One cleaning shortfall
minorThe home was generally clean, but one toilet had not been thoroughly cleaned. The manager acted immediately and reviewed the cleaning checks.
“Infection prevention and control procedures were well-managed and the home was clean and tidy, although we noted one toilet had not been thoroughly cleaned.” from the report
Best-interest decision recording
needs fixingOne best-interest decision had not been recorded correctly and a family member had signed a consent form instead. The provider corrected the documentation during the inspection.
“We noted one person had best interest decisions in place, but these had not been recorded.” from the report
Staff appraisal arrangements
needs fixingStaff supervision was not happening as often as the written policy said, and formal appraisals had not taken place. The provider updated the policy after discussing this with inspectors.
“Formal staff appraisals had not taken place.” from the report
Some people did not know how to complain
minorThe latest survey found that only 45% of people knew how to make an official complaint. The home introduced and explained an easy-read complaints procedure.
“only 45% of people knew how to make an official complaint” from the report
- 01How often are the fire risk assessment and the full legionella risk assessment reviewed now?
- 02How do you record best-interest decisions for people who cannot make particular decisions themselves?
- 03How often will my relative receive a formal care review, and how will changes in their needs be recorded?
- 04How do staff receive supervision, training and appraisals under the current policy?
- 05How will you make sure my relative and our family know how to make a complaint?
This was an unannounced inspection that looked at the care provided, the premises, people's experiences and the home's management, and rated all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 October 2019 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, February 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with significant improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 24 and 25 January 2017. Two inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They observed care, followed four people's experiences through the service and checked records, staffing and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines practice, suitable food and drink support, respectful care, regular care plan reviews and a range of activities.
The previous inspection in May 2015 found three breaches. These involved infection control, hot water, dehydration and malnutrition support, care assessments and quality monitoring. At this inspection, inspectors said the provider had made significant improvements and met all the previous requirements.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough suitably skilled staff to meet people's needs. Staff were not rushed and responded promptly to call bells.
“There were enough skilled staff deployed to support people and meet their needs.” from the report
Safe medicines and risk support
Medicines were stored and administered safely. Risk assessments were updated when people's needs changed, with guidance for staff on keeping people safe.
“Medicines were appropriately stored and disposed of. People received their medicines when they needed them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff treated people with dignity and respect, explained care before providing it and encouraged people to do what they could for themselves.
“Staff were kind, compassionate and treated people with dignity and respect.” from the report
Improvement since the last inspection
The provider had addressed the problems identified in 2015. Inspectors said all requirements from the previous inspection had been met.
“At this inspection we found the provider had made significant improvements and met all requirements issued from our last inspection.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's preferences, interests and routines. Staff knew people well and adapted support when needs changed.
“Care plans were personalised and provided detail about people's hobbies and interests.” from the report
Call bell system
minorThe provider said the existing call bell system could be problematic and planned to replace it. Inspectors also found that staff responded quickly and checked people who could not use the system.
“We are getting a new call bell system because some of the staff have told us our current system can be a bit problematic” from the report
- 01Has the new call bell system mentioned in the report been installed, and how is it tested?
- 02How are people who cannot use the call bell checked and supported now?
- 03How often are care plans and risk assessments reviewed when a person's needs change?
- 04How are people supported to choose activities, including those who prefer quieter areas or do not want to join in?
- 05How are food and fluid intake monitored for people at risk of dehydration or malnutrition?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with a rating given for each area. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 February 2017 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 Mount Care Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 December 2012.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.