CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oak Tree Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Oak Tree Lodge rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but some water checks and incident notifications were incomplete.
This was a planned inspection on 29 March 2021. Two inspectors spoke with staff, observed care, reviewed care, medicines and recruitment records, and gathered views from relatives, staff and professionals.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems, good infection control, personalised care plans and positive leadership.
Some required water management checks had not been completed regularly. The home acted immediately to improve this. Inspectors also found that two incidents had not been notified to the CQC, although appropriate action had been taken to reduce risks.
Kind, unhurried care
There were enough staff to meet people's needs without rushing them. Inspectors saw staff spending individual time with people.
“We observed staff spending time with people one on one and supporting them in a non-hurried way.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were stored, recorded and given safely. Staff were trained and their competence was checked regularly.
“People received their medicines from staff who had received appropriate training and whose competency was regularly assessed.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, preferences and personal background. Staff knew residents well and worked with other professionals when needed.
“People had person-centred care plans, which reflected their preferences and provided information about their background.” from the report
Positive leadership and communication
Relatives, staff and professionals gave consistently positive feedback about the leadership team. The home sought feedback and acted on it.
“Feedback from relatives, staff and professionals about the leadership team was consistently positive.” from the report
Water safety checks were missed
needs fixingSome required water management checks, including temperature monitoring, had not been completed regularly. The provider acted immediately and reviewed the system.
“Not all required water management checks, such as temperature monitoring, had been completed regularly.” from the report
Two incidents were not notified
needs fixingThe home had not notified the CQC about two incidents when it should have done. Inspectors said appropriate action had been taken to reduce risks.
“We found that we had not been notified of two incidents and have signposted the provider to our regulations.” from the report
- 01What new process is now used to complete and record all water management checks?
- 02How do managers check that incidents are reported to the CQC when required?
- 03How will the new dependency tool affect staffing levels as people's needs change?
- 04What further learning has been put in place following the recent review of covert medicines administration?
- 05How will relatives continue to be involved in decisions about care and activities?
This planned inspection assessed Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the report did not give new ratings for Effective, Caring or Responsive. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 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, August 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements made since the previous inspection.
Inspectors visited on 24 and 25 July 2017 without giving notice. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They also observed care and checked care records, staff files, medicines, staffing records, audits and policies.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines arrangements, personalised care plans and good support with health needs. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
The previous inspection in June 2015 found a breach because risks were not always assessed when people's needs changed. Inspectors said the provider had completed the planned improvements. Evacuation plans were also moved to an accessible place.
Personalised care
Care plans included people's preferences, histories and changing health needs. Staff could access and update records promptly.
“Care plans were developed and maintained about every aspect of people's care and were centred on individual needs and requirements.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff used people's preferred names, protected privacy and dignity, and encouraged people to remain as independent as possible.
“Staff cared for people in a relaxed, warm and friendly manner.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough skilled staff and found that medicines were securely stored, safely administered and accurately recorded.
“There were enough skilled staff deployed to support people and meet their needs.” from the report
Good leadership
The home had regular staff and residents' meetings, quality checks and an open culture where people could raise concerns.
“The home had a clear management structure in place led by an effective registered manager who understood the aims of the service.” from the report
Previous risks addressed
The provider acted on the earlier safety breach and made evacuation plans readily accessible in an emergency.
“At this inspection PEEPS were located at the entrance to the home together with an emergency grab bag containing contingency plans, torches and evacuation procedures” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01The report says 13 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications were awaiting authorisation. What is the current position of any application affecting my relative?
- 02The home is not registered to provide nursing care. What health needs can you support, and when would another service be needed?
- 03How are my relative's risks assessed and reviewed when their mobility, health or care needs change?
- 04How will you involve our family in care plan reviews and decisions about changing medicines or treatment?
- 05What activities and one-to-one support are available if my relative does not want to join group activities?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five key areas and included conversations, observations and checks of care, staffing, medicines and quality records. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 August 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 Tree Lodge
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 November 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
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.