CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oak Park Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks were assessed and care plans gave staff clear guidance. Medicines records were accurate, staffing levels were safe and infection control arrangements were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training and support needed for their roles. People received support with food, drinks and healthcare, and were supported to make choices in line with the law.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions, supported to remain independent and helped to maintain family relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans had been rewritten and better reflected people’s needs and preferences. The home provided activities, responded to complaints and could provide information in different formats.
- Well-led?
- Good
- There was a clear management structure and regular checks on quality and safety. Inspectors found better oversight and a positive, person-centred culture.
What inspectors found, December 2021
Oak Park Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 9 December 2021. Inspection activity ran from 24 November to 9 December. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels were safe and care records had improved.
People were supported with food, drinks, healthcare, activities and personal choices. Inspectors saw kind and respectful care, and found that managers had introduced stronger checks to monitor the quality and safety of the home.
The previous inspection rated the home Requires Improvement and found two breaches of regulations. At this inspection, the CQC found enough improvement had been made and the home was no longer in breach.
Improved risk management
The home had strengthened how it assessed and managed risks. Care plans gave staff specific information about keeping people safe.
“Risks to people were appropriately assessed, recorded and no longer generalised.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were stored and managed safely. Staff were trained and records covering medicines were appropriate.
“The staff maintained appropriate records for the receipt, administration and disposal of medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them with dignity, privacy, independence and personal choice.
“Staff were caring and supportive with people. They had clearly established close relationships with people and knew them well.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans covered people’s care and support needs, including communication and social histories. Activities were adapted for people who could not join group sessions.
“Care plans were much improved and captured people's assessed needs.” from the report
Stronger leadership
Managers had clearer roles and carried out regular audits and daily checks. Inspectors found that oversight had greatly improved.
“Quality assurance systems were in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have you maintained the improvements to risk assessments and care plans since this inspection?
- 02How do you check that medicines continue to be given on time and recorded accurately?
- 03How would you adapt activities and daily care to my relative’s communication, health or mobility needs?
- 04How will you involve my relative and our family in care reviews and decisions?
- 05What advance care planning would you complete if my relative needed end of life care?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 December 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, February 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care, but risk assessments and care records were not always accurate or complete.
This was an unannounced inspection on 17 and 20 December 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and the home's management records.
People generally said they felt safe and described staff as kind, polite and respectful. The building was clean, modern and well maintained. Medicines, food, healthcare support and end of life care were mostly handled well.
However, some risk assessments and care plans were incomplete, out of date or conflicting. This could make it harder for unfamiliar staff to provide safe care. Some staff training and supervision also needed improvement, and people sometimes had too little to do.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Caring was rated Good, while Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Requires Improvement. This means the service was not consistently meeting the expected standard and CQC required the provider to make improvements.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke very positively about the staff. Inspectors saw people treated with dignity, privacy and respect.
“People told us they were treated with dignity and respect and their privacy was protected.” from the report
Safe, well-maintained building
The home was clean and the building was well maintained. Safety checks and emergency evacuation plans were in place.
“The premises were safe and well maintained.” from the report
Medicine procedures
Medicines were generally handled safely. Most staff had training and competency checks, although a small number needed refresher training.
“Medicines were received, stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Food and healthcare support
People were offered choices at mealtimes and were supported to drink. Their weights were monitored and the home worked with health professionals.
“Staff were patient and caring, offering and supporting people to make a choice.” from the report
End of life care
End of life plans were person-centred when completed. The home worked with relatives and health professionals to support people's preferences.
“Staff ensured these preferences were supported during people's end of life care.” from the report
Incomplete risk information
seriousMoving and handling plans did not always say what equipment was needed. Other risk records contained conflicting or out of date information, creating a risk of unsafe care.
“Moving and handling risk assessments and risk reduction plans did not contain sufficient information to ensure people were protected from harm from unsafe practices.” from the report
Care records were not reliable
seriousCare plans were not always complete, person-centred or updated when people's needs changed. Some records contained incorrect pre-populated information.
“Care plans were not always updated or fully completed and were not person-centred.” from the report
Gaps in training and supervision
needs fixingSome staff had out of date medicine training or competency checks. Not all staff received regular, personalised supervision, and the provider did not always check what staff had learned from e-learning.
“Some staff had not received regular, personalised supervision to identify gaps in their knowledge and skills.” from the report
Not enough meaningful activity at times
needs fixingThe home had an activities coordinator and offered varied activities. However, some people wanted more outings and entertainment, and inspectors saw periods when staff could have offered more meaningful occupation.
“During our inspection we observed there were times when people did not have enough to do, where staff could have provided people with meaningful occupation.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring during the change of provider
needs fixingThe new provider had not yet completed its own full audit. This meant some problems had not been identified through the home's own monitoring systems.
“There hadn't been any recent provider audit at the service to support and direct the registered manager to where improvements were required.” from the report
- 01What has been changed so that every person's moving and handling risks, equipment needs and control measures are accurately recorded?
- 02How do you check that care plans are updated promptly when a person's needs or diet changes?
- 03Which staff still need refresher medicine training or competency checks, and how are these now monitored?
- 04How often do staff receive personalised supervision, and how can staff raise concerns if they feel unheard?
- 05What extra activities, outings or meaningful occupation are now available for people during quieter periods?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection that looked at all five CQC questions and the overall quality and safety of the care home. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 February 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 Park Care Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 November 2019.
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 Kirklees
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. 86 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.