CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Oakdene Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks were assessed and managed, medicines were administered safely, and infection control arrangements were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health, nutrition and hydration needs were well managed. Staff had suitable training, and mental capacity and best-interest processes were being followed.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not separately rated in this inspection. Inspectors observed respectful care and said people were supported to maintain dignity, relationships and choice.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not separately rated in this inspection. Inspectors found activities, personalised care and complaint systems, and people said they felt listened to.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team had introduced quality checks, action plans and regular reports. Inspectors found these systems were being used to improve care and manage risks.
What inspectors found, November 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found significant improvements and the home is no longer in Special Measures.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection after the home was rated Inadequate in February 2023. Inspectors visited on 16 and 19 October 2023, spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, medicines and staff files.
Inspectors found significant improvements in safety, care, the environment and quality checks. People told inspectors they felt safe. Risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, staffing was adequate, and infection control arrangements were good.
People's food, health care and support with daily life were well managed. Staff treated people with respect, supported family relationships and offered activities. The management team had better systems for checking quality, handling concerns and learning from incidents.
The overall rating is Good. Safe, Effective and Well-led were each rated Good. Caring and Responsive were not separately rated in this focused inspection.
Improved safety checks
The home had introduced individual risk assessments and regular reviews. Staff understood the risks and how to support people safely.
“People had individualised risk assessments in place to provide guidance for staff on how to support the person.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff had been trained to handle medicines. Records were correctly completed and medicines were stored and administered safely.
“Staff administering medicines showed good practice and the medicines administering records (MARS) were correctly completed.” from the report
Food and nutrition
Staff understood people's dietary needs, including choking risks and special diets. People and relatives spoke positively about the food and drinks provided.
“People were complimentary about the meals they were given.” from the report
Respectful, person-centred care
Inspectors saw positive interactions. People were involved in decisions and supported to maintain relationships and take part in activities.
“There was evidence people were involved in decisions about their care and the care was centred around their wishes.” from the report
Stronger management oversight
The provider and manager used audits covering areas such as medicines, falls, care plans and the environment. Actions had named responsibility and completion dates.
“Areas had been highlighted for improvement, with actions to be undertaken.” from the report
Staff could be busy
minorPeople said staff always seemed busy, and staff reported covering extra shifts because of sickness. The report says people still received the care they needed, but families may want to check staffing levels for their relative's needs.
“People told us that staff always seemed busy, but they got the care they needed.” from the report
- 01How are you making sure the improvements found at this inspection continue over time?
- 02How many staff and nurses are usually on duty for each shift, and how do you cover sickness?
- 03What refurbishment work is still planned, and when will it be completed?
- 04How often will my relative's risk assessments and care plans be reviewed?
- 05How will you involve me and my relative in decisions about care, activities and diet?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not separately rated and the inspection followed concerns found at the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 November 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, February 2023
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious risks in safety, care, consent and management.
This was an unannounced inspection on 9 and 12 January 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed care plans, medicine records, recruitment files, training records, audits and policies.
Inspectors found people were at risk of harm. The emergency buzzer could not always be heard, bed rails had unsafe gaps, hoist slings were damaged and the home was not always clean. Medicines records and care guidance were also not always safe or complete.
Staff did not always have the training or guidance needed to support people's health conditions, swallowing needs and falls risks. Mental capacity assessments and records about restrictions on people's liberty were incomplete.
The home had poor oversight of risks and did not act quickly enough when concerns were raised. The overall rating changed from Good in 2018 to Inadequate. The home was placed in special measures.
Staffing and recruitment
People and staff said there were enough staff to support people. Staff recruitment checks had been completed safely.
“People told us there were enough staff to support them.” from the report
Food and drink
Inspectors saw that people received enough food and drink, and people spoke positively about the food.
“People spoke highly of the food provided and we saw people received enough food and drink.” from the report
Safeguarding awareness
People said they felt safe from abuse. Staff had received safeguarding training and knew how to raise concerns.
“Staff had received training on how to recognise signs of abuse.” from the report
Emergency response
seriousThe call buzzer could not be heard in all areas. This meant someone might wait too long for help in an emergency.
“This increased the risk that a person may not receive support when they needed it.” from the report
Unsafe equipment
seriousBed rails had gaps where people could become trapped. Damaged hoist slings remained in the home after the risk had been raised.
“This failure to remove all damaged slings from the building left the person at increased risk of potential harm.” from the report
Medicines management
seriousCreams were not always stored or recorded safely, allergy information was inconsistent and staff did not always record why as-needed medicines were given.
“Staff did not always record why 'as needed' prescribed medicines were given and whether the medicine had been effective.” from the report
Training and swallowing support
seriousStaff did not have enough training or clear guidance about health conditions and altered-texture diets. This increased the risk of unsafe support and choking.
“This meant the kitchen staff had incomplete information available to them on how to prepare the person's food and the person was at an increased risk of significant harm caused by choking on food.” from the report
Consent and restrictions
seriousMental capacity assessments were missing in some cases. The management team did not know which people were affected by Deprivation of Liberty referrals.
“This poor oversight risks people's human rights not being upheld.” from the report
Poor management checks
seriousAudits did not identify key risks, and action was not taken promptly after concerns from the local authority or inspectors.
“Systems had not been established to assess, monitor and mitigate risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service.” from the report
- 01Can you show us that the emergency buzzer can now be heard from every bedroom and area of the home?
- 02What has been done to make bed rails, hoist slings, stair gates and hot pipes safe?
- 03How are you checking that medicines, including creams and as-needed medicines, are stored and recorded correctly?
- 04What training and written guidance do staff now have for swallowing needs, altered-texture diets, falls and residents' health conditions?
- 05How are mental capacity assessments and Deprivation of Liberty records now kept up to date?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected, and ratings for uninspected key questions were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 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.
Every inspection of Oakdene Care Home
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- November 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2023Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.