CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oakdene House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Staff did not always follow the systems for recording people's financial transactions. Other safety arrangements were positive, including risk assessments, staffing, medicines management, infection control and learning from incidents.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were thoroughly assessed and staff received training, supervision and support. People had access to healthcare and were supported with food, drink and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff understood people's needs and treated them with respect and dignity. People were supported to communicate, make choices and develop daily living skills.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support plans were detailed and personalised. People were supported to maintain relationships, follow their interests, take part in activities and raise complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive culture, regular audits and systems for learning from incidents and complaints. Management worked with staff and other organisations to improve people's care.
What inspectors found, February 2020
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but the safe rating requires improvement because financial records were not always accurate.
This was a planned, announced inspection on 7 January 2020. One inspector reviewed care records, medicines records, staff recruitment and training records, audits and health and safety records. They also observed care and spoke with staff, management and one relative.
The home supported two adults with learning disabilities and/or autism at the time. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, well-managed care risks and a clean, suitable environment. People received personalised support, had access to healthcare and activities, and were treated with respect.
The main concern was people's finances. A financial record did not match the cash held because money had been taken out but not recorded. This increased the risk of financial misappropriation. The overall rating stayed Good, but the safe rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement.
Personalised support
Support plans covered people's health, behaviour, communication, routines, interests and personal care needs. Staff knew these plans and used them to guide support.
“Each person had a support plan which contained detailed information about their needs.” from the report
Good risk management
Risks were assessed and plans explained how staff should keep people safe. The home's therapy team helped develop and review these plans.
“Risks to people were assessed and management plans developed to address identified risks.” from the report
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found staffing levels met people's needs, including support requiring one or two staff. Staff had training in areas such as autism, epilepsy and behaviour support.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs safely.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
People received medicines as prescribed. Inspectors found medicines records completed correctly for the period checked, with secure storage and regular stock checks.
“People received their medicines as prescribed and medicines were managed safely.” from the report
Positive leadership
The manager and therapy team supported staff to provide person-centred care. Audits, incident reviews and action plans were used to monitor the service.
“The culture of the service was positive and enabled good outcomes for people.” from the report
Financial records did not match cash held
seriousA person's financial record did not match the cash available. Money had been taken out but not recorded, increasing the risk of financial misappropriation.
“This increases the risk of financial misappropriation.” from the report
Financial procedures were not always followed
needs fixingStaff did not always follow the home's system for recording people's financial transactions. The manager said the issue would be addressed with staff and that extra finance audits would take place.
“The systems and processes to safeguard people from the risk of abuse were not always followed by staff.” from the report
- 01What checks are now made to ensure every withdrawal from a person's money is recorded immediately?
- 02How often are people's financial records and cash balances independently checked?
- 03What action was taken with staff after the unrecorded withdrawal was found?
- 04How will you tell families if there is another unexplained difference in a person's finances?
- 05How are changes in people's risks and support needs shared with all staff?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, including the care provided and the home environment; the report reviewed records for two people and spoke with one relative. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 February 2020 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, July 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some staff support improvements still being established.
Inspectors visited on 9 June 2017. The visit was announced 24 hours in advance. They observed how staff supported people, reviewed care and staff records, and spoke with relatives, an advocate, a health and social care professional, managers and a staff member. They could not speak directly with people because of their complex needs.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that medicines were given correctly, risks were assessed, staffing was sufficient, and staff understood how to protect people from abuse.
People received individual care plans, healthy food and support with healthcare, activities and community links. Relatives and professionals described staff as kind and caring. The home had improved its training, supervision and quality checks since problems found in March 2016.
The overall Good rating means inspectors found the home was meeting the relevant requirements at this inspection. Some improvements were still being put in place, including more frequent staff supervision, annual appraisals and redecoration in some areas.
Safe medicines
Inspectors checked all the people's medicines records and found that medicines were stored safely, recorded accurately and given at the right times.
“The MARs we inspected confirmed that people had received their medicines at the correct times each day.” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff were patient, respectful and knowledgeable about the people they supported. Relatives and professionals also described the care as kind and caring.
“We saw that positive, caring relationships had been developed with people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's backgrounds, preferences, communication needs and activities. Relatives and professionals helped prepare and review them.
“Care plans were person centred and tailored to the needs of the individual.” from the report
Activities and choice
People were supported to take part in activities at home and in the community, with flexible plans based on their needs and preferences.
“We saw that each person had their own varied activities timetable for the week based on their individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Improved management checks
The provider introduced new audits and systems to monitor care, medicines, training and supervision. Inspectors saw action taken when checks found a problem.
“The provider had also implemented a new range of checks and audits to monitor the quality of the service that we saw were effective in identifying areas for improvement.” from the report
Staff appraisals
needs fixingAnnual staff appraisals had not yet taken place. The manager said there were plans for them, so ask whether this has now been completed.
“At the time of the inspection the provider had not carried out staff appraisals.” from the report
Supervision changes not fully established
needs fixingStaff supervision was taking place every three months, while the home planned to increase this to every six to eight weeks. Inspectors said it was too early to know whether the new system was firmly in place.
“It was too early to comment on whether these improvements were properly established yet” from the report
Redecoration
minorSome paintwork in the hall, stairs, landing and some bedrooms needed attention. The manager said this was a priority.
“We noted that the home was well equipped but there were some areas such as the hall, stairs, landing and some of the bedrooms that needed a redecoration of the paintwork.” from the report
- 01How often do staff now receive formal supervision, and has this changed from every three months?
- 02Have all staff received an annual appraisal since this inspection?
- 03What action was taken after the previous medicines concerns, and how are medicines checked now?
- 04Have the hall, stairs, landing and bedrooms been redecorated?
- 05How will you involve my relative and our family in reviewing their care plan and activity choices?
This was an announced inspection covering all five rating areas, but inspectors could not speak directly with people because of their complex needs and relied on observation, records and conversations with others. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 July 2017 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 House
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Good
- May 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 May 2015.
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 Bexley
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 £1,250 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Usha rapidly became 'one of the family' and is sorely missed.”
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.