CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oak View
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe. Risk assessments, recruitment checks, medicines processes, cleaning arrangements and incident reviews were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans covered people's needs and goals, and staff received induction, training and supervision. Inspectors noted that some standardised care-plan information was not relevant and that food records would be more useful with portion sizes.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people's preferences and communication methods and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions about their care and activities.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support and activities were personalised, and people were encouraged to maintain relationships and interests. The complaints process was clear, but verbal complaints were not always included in the formal complaints register.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Changes to the management structure and new audits had helped improve oversight and accountability. Inspectors said these systems still needed time to become consistent.
What inspectors found, August 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some records and complaint handling still needing improvement.
Inspectors visited on 8 May, 15 May and 1 July 2019. They met the three people living in the home, spoke with 22 staff and checked care, medicines, training, recruitment, incidents and quality records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people had choice over their daily routines, were supported to build independence and took part in activities they found meaningful.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, which was rated Requires Improvement and found two breaches of regulation. The provider was no longer in breach at this inspection, although some improvements still needed time to become consistent.
Choice and independence
People decided their daily routines and were supported to make choices, gain skills and become more independent.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff understood people's likes, communication and signs of anxiety. Inspectors saw calm, respectful and compassionate support.
“We observed staff consistently treated people with a very kind and compassionate manner.” from the report
Personalised activities
People were offered activities based on their interests and could choose whether to take part. Support included community activities, clubs, friends and voluntary work.
“People led their own activities programme and decided whether to participate or not.” from the report
Improved management
A changed management structure and new audits had helped address problems found at the previous inspection.
“The management restructuring had assisted the service to make the necessary improvements.” from the report
Care-plan information
minorCare plans were thorough, but their standard format sometimes included information that was not relevant to the person.
“We found that the standardised format of the plans meant that sometimes information was recorded when not required or relevant to individuals.” from the report
Food and drink records
minorRecords showed what people ate and drank, but recording portion sizes would have made information about weight changes more useful.
“When recording because of weight loss or weight gain a record of the portion size would make records more meaningful.” from the report
Verbal complaints
needs fixingVerbal complaints were written in people's care records but were not also added to the formal complaints register.
“Information was recorded on individuals care planning records, but had not been included as part of the formal complaints register.” from the report
Follow-up on applications
needs fixingInspectors asked the service to provide evidence that it had followed up applications with the local authority.
“We asked the service to evidence when they had followed up on application progress with the local authority.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure care plans contain only information that is relevant to the person?
- 02How do you record portion sizes when monitoring weight loss or weight gain?
- 03How are verbal complaints recorded, investigated and added to the formal complaints register?
- 04What is the current position on following up applications with the local authority?
- 05How have the management changes and audits become consistent since this inspection?
This was a planned inspection of all five CQC questions, including the care home, its premises and records; inspectors looked at one person's care records and spoke with the three people living there. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 August 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, May 2018
Oak View rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care but safety checks, legal safeguards and quality monitoring needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 22 January 2018. Inspectors looked at the building, records, staff practice and management systems. They reviewed one person's care record, five staff recruitment files and spoke with three staff.
The home was caring and responsive. Staff treated people with dignity, knew their needs and supported activities such as shopping, swimming and walks. Care records were detailed and regularly updated.
There were important safety and management problems. Water temperatures were high enough to cause scalds, checks for harmful bacteria in the water system had not been done, and some safeguards and medicine arrangements were incomplete. The provider took immediate action on some issues when inspectors raised them.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were rated Good. The home had not been inspected before.
Kind relationships
Staff and people had friendly, respectful relationships. Inspectors saw people being given space to do things for themselves while staff stayed nearby to help.
“Positive relationships had developed between people and staff.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records included people's health needs, preferences, history and activities. Staff knew the people they supported.
“Care records were person centred in their approach.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to choose and take part in activities including walks, shopping trips, swimming and cinema visits.
“Staff supported people to engage in activities such as going for walks, shopping trips and swimming, amongst others.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
There were enough staff during the inspection, with consistent staffing shown on rotas. Recruitment checks helped ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff in post to meet people's needs.” from the report
Scalding risk and water checks
seriousWater temperatures were well above safe limits, creating a risk of scalding. The water system had also not been checked for harmful bacteria. The management team made the water safe when inspectors raised this.
“Water temperatures were well in excess of safe limits and posed a risk of scalding people.” from the report
Legal safeguards
seriousDeprivation of Liberty Safeguards were not in place where required. The provider started the application process after inspectors raised the issue.
“People requiring a DoLS had these in place and found that they did not.” from the report
As-required medicine arrangements
needs fixingOne person's emergency medicine had instructions, but staff had not been trained to give it. Inspectors recommended that the provider seek advice about the requirements for some as-required medicines.
“However, staff had not received training in how to administer this.” from the report
Quality monitoring
needs fixingAudits had not identified problems that inspectors found, including unsafe water temperatures and DoLS issues. This meant the provider's checks were not fully effective.
“Quality monitoring systems had failed to identify issues which had been identified as part of the inspection.” from the report
Accessible information
minorInformation was not always available in formats such as pictures or easy read, which could make care records harder for some people to use.
“Information was not always available in alternative formats to ensure it was accessible to people.” from the report
- 01What action was taken to keep water temperatures within safe limits, and how are temperatures now checked and recorded?
- 02When was the water system last checked for harmful bacteria, and what were the results?
- 03Are all required Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications now in place, and how are they reviewed?
- 04Which staff are trained to give emergency as-required medicines, and how is that training kept up to date?
- 05How does the home check that its audits identify safety and legal problems before an inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; inspectors reviewed one person's care record and the service had four people living there, with only one receiving a regulated activity. 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 View
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 December 2016.
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 Warrington
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. 90 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.