CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Oakbank Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, staff were recruited safely, call bells were answered promptly and medicines were safely managed. Infection prevention arrangements were also found to be effective.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and people received support with food, drinks and healthcare. The home was working within the Mental Capacity Act and had the required legal authorisations in place.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. Care was personalised, and people and relatives were involved in care planning and reviews.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and wishes. The home provided activities suited to people's abilities and responded to complaints, although there had been some earlier communication problems.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor the service and make improvements. Staff and relatives described the management as approachable and supportive.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Oakbank Care Home is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, with minor issues around communication and record detail.
This was an unannounced inspection by two inspectors. They visited on 5 and 9 January 2023, reviewed care, safety, staffing and other records, and spoke with people living there, relatives, visiting professionals and staff.
The home was rated 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 people received kind, personalised support.
People's food, healthcare, activities and end of life care were supported well. There were some minor issues, including information being displayed behind Perspex at first and some monitoring forms not containing enough detail. The home acted on these points during or after the inspection.
Safe medicines practice
Inspectors checked medicine records, stock, storage and controlled drugs. They found medicines were managed safely and staff had been assessed as competent.
“Medicine's administration records (MAR) were accurate and complete.” from the report
Regular risk reviews
Risks were assessed in detail and reviewed when people's needs changed. The home also had suitable equipment and emergency plans.
“Risk assessments were robust, individualised and reviewed regularly.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness and supporting them in a person-centred way. People's privacy and dignity were respected.
“We observed staff treating people with respect and kindness.” from the report
Personalised activities
Activities were adjusted to people's needs and abilities. The home had a weekly timetable and records showed people had been supported to go out.
“Records showed people had recent days out to the seaside.” from the report
Communication had needed improvement
minorOne relative described early communication problems, although these were resolved and communication had improved. Ask how relatives are kept informed now.
“Some initial teething problems regarding communication however quickly resolved – good 3-way communication now – always kept informed” from the report
Some records lacked detail
needs fixingAn audit found that monitoring forms had not always been completed in enough detail. The issue was addressed through staff supervision, but it is worth asking how this is checked now.
“a recent audit identified monitoring forms had not always been completed in sufficient detail.” from the report
Information was initially behind Perspex
minorSome information about safeguarding, advocacy and whistleblowing was displayed behind Perspex on the first inspection day. Hard copies were later made available.
“On the first day of the inspection some external information, such as whistle blowing, safeguarding and advocacy was on display, but behind Perspex.” from the report
- 01How will the ongoing renovation affect residents' rooms, routines and access to communal areas?
- 02How often are agency staff used, and how do you make sure they know my relative's needs and preferences?
- 03What checks are now in place to make sure monitoring forms are completed with enough detail?
- 04How will you keep relatives informed and deal with communication concerns?
- 05How can residents access safeguarding, advocacy and whistleblowing information?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control, with both the care provided and the premises looked at. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 February 2023 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 2021
Oakbank Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found no systemic safeguarding problems, but a high-touch cleaning checklist was missing.
This was a targeted inspection after CQC received concerns about safeguarding. Inspectors visited unannounced at night on 6 October 2021 and returned during the day on 7 October 2021. They reviewed records, observed care, spoke with four people living in the home and seven staff members, and asked for further information.
Inspectors found safeguarding systems, staff recruitment checks, staffing arrangements and incident monitoring were in place. People appeared relaxed and well cared for. The inspection found no evidence of systemic safeguarding problems.
The home was also checked on infection prevention and control. Inspectors were assured about visiting, personal protective equipment, testing, admissions and outbreak arrangements. However, although cleaning had increased, there was no specific checklist for high-touch surfaces.
The home was not given a new overall rating. Safe and Well-led were both recorded as inspected but not rated because this was a targeted inspection. The previous comprehensive inspection rated the service Good, published on 24 February 2021.
Safeguarding systems
Staff knew how to recognise and report possible abuse. Inspectors found no evidence of systemic safeguarding problems.
“We found no evidence of systemic safeguarding issues within Oakbank.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Recruitment checks and induction were in place. Inspectors saw staffing levels that met people's needs, with regular agency staff used when needed.
“Staffing arrangements met people's needs. During the inspection we observed appropriate levels of staffing to support the people who used the service.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured about measures covering visitors, personal protective equipment, testing, admissions and managing outbreaks.
“We were assured the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Management oversight
Audits and quality checks were being used, and a new quality assurance tool had strengthened oversight.
“Systems for audit, quality assurance and questioning of practice were operated effectively.” from the report
High-touch cleaning records
minorCleaning had increased and some checklists were used, but there was no specific checklist for high-touch surfaces. CQC signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach.
“Cleaning regimes had increased, and some checklists were used, however a specific checklist for high touch surfaces was not in place.” from the report
- 01What specific checklist is now used for cleaning high-touch surfaces?
- 02How often are high-touch surfaces checked, and who reviews the records?
- 03How would staff respond if they suspected abuse or another safeguarding concern?
- 04How are staffing levels reviewed when people's needs change?
- 05What actions have been completed using the new quality assurance tool?
This was a targeted inspection of specific safeguarding concerns and infection prevention and control, with parts of Safe and Well-led reviewed; it did not assess the full five key questions and did not change the previous ratings. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 November 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.
Every inspection of Oakbank Care Home
7 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- February 2021Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 January 2011.
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 Manchester
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. 89 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.