CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oakdene Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and risks such as falls, choking and malnutrition were assessed and reviewed. Inspectors found safe recruitment, adequate staffing and safe medicines systems.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received suitable training and people received support with food, drink and healthcare. The home worked with health professionals and followed the Mental Capacity Act principles described in the report.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind, patient, respectful and caring. Inspectors observed respectful communication, privacy and support for independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences and routines. People were supported with communication, activities, relationships and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager and provider carried out audits and involved people, relatives and staff in improvements. Inspectors found a visible management team and a pleasant, relaxed atmosphere.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with only a minor safety suggestion about gloves in a public area.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 23 September 2019. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a health and social care professional. They also checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people felt safe, staff were trained, medicines were managed safely, and care was tailored to people's needs and preferences.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, which was rated Requires Improvement and included one breach of regulation. At this inspection, the provider was no longer in breach.
Risks were managed
Risks were assessed, monitored and reviewed. Staff could explain the steps used to reduce risks such as falls, choking and malnutrition.
“Risks to people were assessed, monitored and reviewed. Where people were at risk, appropriate strategies were put in place to mitigate the risk.” from the report
Kind relationships
People had good relationships with staff. Inspectors saw respectful conversations, laughter and positive interactions.
“Staff spoke to people respectfully and we observed pleasant conversations and high spirits throughout our visit.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's routines, preferences and how they wanted staff to help them. People could choose how they spent their time.
“The plans gave detailed information to staff about how the person needed to be cared for.” from the report
Activities and social contact
People could take part in activities based on their interests and visit local amenities. The home also welcomed regular entertainers and visitors.
“We saw people went to visit local amenities and were able to join in a range of activities at the home” from the report
Improvements since the last inspection
The home improved its approach to risk assessment and management. It also fitted security gates and refurbished all bathrooms.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Gloves in a public area
minorInspectors suggested that gloves kept in a public area should be removed to improve safety. This was a minor issue and was not recorded as a breach.
“We suggested the registered manager remove gloves from a public area to improve safety.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure gloves are kept away from public areas?
- 02How will you assess and review my relative's risks, including falls, choking or malnutrition?
- 03What activities are available that match my relative's interests and routines?
- 04How will you support my relative's food, drink and any modified diet needs?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in care reviews and decisions?
This was an unannounced planned inspection based on the previous rating and covered all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 October 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, September 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective care but serious gaps in risk assessments and oversight.
This was a comprehensive inspection on 7 and 9 August 2018. The first day was unannounced. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staff records and management records.
People and relatives were very positive about the care. Inspectors found kind and respectful staff, enough staff on duty, safe medicines administration, good food and effective contact with healthcare professionals. The home was clean and people had activities and choices.
However, some risk assessments and care plans contained incorrect or out-of-date information. The laundry building was not secure, giving access to chemicals, machinery and a nearby road. Radiators were also uncovered in some areas. These issues led to an overall rating of Requires Improvement and one breach of regulations.
The home was rated Good for Effective, Caring and Responsive. It was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. This was the first rated inspection under a provider registered in January 2018. The inspection did not examine the circumstances of the specific incident that prompted it.
Kind and respectful staff
People, relatives and a healthcare professional spoke highly of the staff. Inspectors saw respectful communication, attention to dignity and support for personal choices.
“People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion.” from the report
Enough staff
People said staff were available when needed. Inspectors found staffing levels reflected people's needs and saw staff providing timely support.
“We saw that the staffing ratio reflected the needs of the residents.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored and administered safely by nursing staff. Records, including controlled medicines records, matched what was held.
“The administration of medicines was safe.” from the report
Good activities and choice
People could choose whether to join activities and had a range of options, including games, crafts, music and gardening.
“There is always something to do if we feel like doing something.” from the report
Good food and nutrition monitoring
People had meal choices and could request alternatives. Inspectors found that food and fluid intake, weight and malnutrition risks were monitored.
“All charts were well completed and analysed, which showed staff were effectively monitoring people's intake and taking action, as required.” from the report
Incorrect risk information
seriousSeveral risk assessments and care plans did not contain enough information or contained information that was wrong or out of date. This could mean staff did not have reliable instructions for safe care.
“We found a further six examples where risk assessments and care plans did not include enough information, or the correct information for staff to support people safely.” from the report
Insecure laundry building
seriousThe laundry door was propped open and the area was not supervised. People could reach chemicals and machinery, and could potentially get to the nearby road.
“The laundry building contained chemicals and machinery that were hazardous to health and posed a risk to people.” from the report
Uncovered radiators
minorSome radiators were left uncovered. Inspectors recommended that secure covers should be fitted.
“We found that in some parts of the building radiators were left uncovered.” from the report
Care plans not always current
needs fixingCare plans were reviewed but did not always match the related risk assessments or reflect people's current needs. Inspectors recommended immediate reviews.
“Care plans reflected how people would like their care to be delivered, but did not always reflect their current needs.” from the report
Limited dementia-friendly design
minorThe home was homely, but inspectors said more could be done to meet the needs of residents living with dementia.
“We felt that more could be done to make the home 'dementia friendly' for residents with a diagnosis of dementia.” from the report
- 01Have all risk assessments and care plans now been corrected so they match people's current needs?
- 02How do you check that staff are following the latest risk assessments and care plans?
- 03What security changes were made to the laundry building, and how do you check that the area remains inaccessible to residents?
- 04Have secure covers been fitted to all uncovered radiators?
- 05What changes have been made to make the home more dementia friendly?
This was a comprehensive inspection of the home, including care and the premises; it was brought forward because of concerns about a specific incident, but the circumstances of that incident were not examined. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 September 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 Oakdene Care Home
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 January 2018.
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 Oldham
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. 92 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“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.