CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Oak Vale Gardens
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks were assessed, medicines were safely managed and there were enough safely recruited staff.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and treatment plans were regularly reviewed, and inspectors found evidence of improved health, skills and independence. Staff worked with therapists and other professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed treating people warmly and respectfully. People were offered choices and supported to communicate and make decisions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and involved people and their relatives. People were supported with activities, technology, complaints and plans for future care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a clear management structure, approachable leadership and systems for checking quality. They noted that some informal feedback was not recorded clearly enough.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Oak Vale Gardens was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and effective rehabilitation support, with only a minor record-keeping improvement noted.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 14 May 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, a relative, staff and a visiting professional. They observed daily life and checked records on recruitment, training, medicines, audits and care plans.
The home supported up to 18 people with brain injuries, and 16 people lived there at the inspection. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines systems and good support from a wider team of health and care professionals. People were supported to regain skills and become more independent.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection in 2016. Inspectors asked the manager to keep clearer records of some informal feedback from people and relatives.
Safety and staffing
People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment and medicines given as prescribed.
“There were enough safely recruited staff working at the home to meet people's assessed needs.” from the report
Rehabilitation outcomes
People told inspectors that the home had helped improve their quality of life, skills and independence. Treatment plans were changed as people's needs changed.
“People we spoke with told us that being at Oak Vale Gardens had improved their quality of life and helped them become more independent.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff spent time with people, respected different communication styles and supported people to make choices.
“Throughout the inspection we observed staff interacting with people in a positive, friendly and respectful manner.” from the report
Team working
The home worked closely with therapists, hospitals, consultants and other professionals to support people's recovery.
“Care records showed that staff worked well with other agencies and health professionals to provide the support people needed.” from the report
Complaints handling
People and visitors said they felt able to raise concerns. Records showed that complaints were investigated and acted on.
“Records showed that complaints were taken seriously, investigated and acted upon.” from the report
Recording family feedback
minorSome feedback from people and relatives was collected informally and was not always recorded. Inspectors discussed keeping a clearer record so there would be an audit trail.
“We discussed with the registered manager making a record of the consultations carried out with people so there was a clearer audit trail” from the report
- 01How will you set and review my relative's rehabilitation goals, and how will you show their progress?
- 02How will you involve my relative and our family in planning a return home or a move to longer-term accommodation?
- 03How are informal comments and feedback from families now recorded and followed up?
- 04What therapies and outside professionals would be involved in my relative's care, and how often would they review progress?
- 05How flexible are visiting arrangements if our family cannot visit during the home's usual visiting hours?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection that considered all five CQC areas, including the care provided and the home environment. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 June 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, November 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and effective rehabilitation care, although one person said there was not enough to do.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 October 2016. One inspector spoke with people, a visitor, staff and managers. They observed both units and checked care, medicine, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people felt safe, medicines were managed properly, staff were trained and care was kind and respectful.
The home provides extended rehabilitation for adults with acquired brain injuries and complex health and social care needs. People received regular input from therapy and healthcare professionals, and families were involved in care planning and reviews.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. Staff had up-to-date medicine competency checks.
“Medicines were administered safely by staff and the arrangements for ordering, storage, administration and recording were robust.” from the report
Specialist rehabilitation
People had regular sessions with physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech and language therapists and a psychologist. Progress and goals were reviewed regularly.
“People had access to a range of therapy sessions to aid their rehabilitation and staff carried out a daily exercise regime with each person.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were patient and explained what they were doing. Inspectors saw that people's privacy and dignity were respected.
“People were supported by kind and attentive staff.” from the report
Good family involvement
Families were involved in care planning and three-month reviews. Staff listened to relatives' concerns and acted on them.
“The staff involve me in their care planning and I can make suggestions about their wishes and choices” from the report
Open management
People and staff said the manager was approachable. Audits, meetings and daily briefings supported oversight of the service.
“The registered manager monitored the quality of the service by regularly speaking with people to ensure they were happy with the service they received.” from the report
Limited activities
minorOne person said they were bored and did not have enough to do after therapeutic activities. The report says activities were low key and depended on staff time.
“One person told us they were bored as they did not have enough to do to engage them.” from the report
Feedback not yet analysed
minorSome surveys had been returned, but the feedback had not yet been analysed by the manager when inspectors visited.
“The feedback from these had yet to be analysed by the registered manager” from the report
- 01What staffing vacancies are there now, and is agency staff still used for night nursing or other roles?
- 02What activities are available outside therapy, and how do you make sure people are not left bored?
- 03How are therapy goals recorded, reviewed and shared with families?
- 04How often are families invited to care reviews, and how can they see or contribute to care plans?
- 05What did the returned surveys show, and how have they led to changes in the home?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five rating areas, with observations of both units and checks of care, medicine, staffing, training and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 November 2016 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 Vale Gardens
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 October 2013.
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
91 live-in carers within about an hour of Liverpool
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. 10 years' experience on average.
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
“All in all Kama b cared for the owner really well, every aspect of her care was of the highest standard.”
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.