CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oakdene
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Oakdene rated Good overall, but inspectors found the service was not always responsive and rated this Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection by two inspectors on 1 October 2019. They spoke with 11 people, staff and health and social care professionals. They reviewed six care records and records about medicines, staffing, complaints and the running of the home.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, received effective care, and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported people's health, nutrition, medicines and communication needs.
Responsive was rated Requires Improvement. Care planning had improved, but people's choices were not always fully promoted. This included a lack of dedicated same-sex communal areas and bathing facilities, and people were not routinely offered structured one-to-one support for mental health and life goals.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published in September 2018. The home was no longer in breach of Regulation 17 because its quality monitoring had improved.
People felt safe
Inspectors found effective safeguarding, risk management, staffing and medicines arrangements. People told inspectors they felt safe and staff helped them to stay safe.
“People told us they felt safe at the service and that staff helped them to keep safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, rights and independence. People were involved in decisions about their care.
“People received care from staff who were respectful, kind, caring; knew people well and ensured their dignity and rights in care.” from the report
Health and nutrition support
Staff supported people to access health professionals and to maintain their health and nutrition. People were offered meals they enjoyed and choices suited to their dietary needs.
“People were supported to maintain or improve their health and nutrition and to eat and drink sufficient amounts of food they enjoyed.” from the report
Improved quality monitoring
The provider had introduced a revised quality assurance system. Inspectors found that management checks were now more effective and that the previous governance breach had been resolved.
“The provider was implementing a recognised, revised quality assurance system across their services.” from the report
Choice and life-goal planning
needs fixingPeople's choice and control were not always fully promoted. They were not routinely offered structured one-to-one time with trained staff to discuss mental health and life goals.
“People were not routinely offered one to one time with a staff member, trained to support regular structured conversations in relation to people's mental health and key life goal planning..” from the report
Communal facilities
needs fixingThe home did not have dedicated same-sex communal lounges and bathing facilities. This was identified as a shortfall in meeting people's choices and needs.
“There were no dedicated same sex communal lounges and bathing facilities available.” from the report
Outstanding environmental improvements
minorAction had not yet been taken in response to people's views about lighting and Wi-Fi. Management said improvement measures were planned.
“Action had not been taken, following people's expressed views in relation to lighting levels and access to Wi-Fi at the service.” from the report
Training updates
needs fixingSome staff training updates were overdue. Management had plans to address the gaps within stated timescales.
“Management plans were in progress to address identified staff training gaps, where training updates were overdue; within identified and reasonable timescales for achievement.” from the report
- 01What structured one-to-one mental health and life-goal support is now offered, and how often?
- 02What arrangements are in place for people who want same-sex communal lounges or bathing facilities?
- 03What has been done about the lighting and Wi-Fi improvements mentioned in the report?
- 04Have all overdue staff training updates been completed, especially training about least restrictive support and physical intervention?
- 05How are care plans now checked to make sure each person's choices, routines and goals are fully recorded?
This was a planned but unannounced inspection based on the previous rating, covering all five CQC questions and both the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 December 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
Oakdene rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but weaknesses in safety, care records and oversight.
The CQC carried out an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 14 August 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staffing information, complaints, audits and policies.
The home supported 38 people with mental health needs and had places for up to 40. Inspectors rated effective and caring care as Good. People were treated kindly and with respect, received suitable food and healthcare, and were supported to make choices and stay involved in their communities.
The ratings for safe, responsive and well-led were Requires Improvement. Risks were not always assessed or managed well, some medicines guidance was missing, and care plans and records were incomplete. The home's checks had not found all these problems.
The home was rated Good in every area at the September 2016 inspection. At this inspection, the CQC found that fundamental care standards were not fully met, so the overall rating fell to Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful staff
People were treated with kindness, respect and compassion. Staff promoted privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were supported by staff who treated them with kindness, respect and compassion.” from the report
Good health support
Staff worked well with external healthcare professionals and followed specialist advice, including advice about swallowing difficulties.
“The Manager and carers are excellent communicators and are swift to get in touch to raise matters of concern for clients” from the report
Food and drink choices
People were offered choices and staff knew about their nutritional needs, allergies and preferences. People could also make drinks when they wished.
“The menu was developed with people to ensure it reflected their preferences.” from the report
Risks were not always managed
seriousSome risks were not assessed or explained in enough detail for staff. Inspectors found concerns about smoking in a bedroom and a lack of guidance about recurring foot infections.
“Risks associated with people's needs had not always been effectively assessed, planned for or monitored.” from the report
Medicines guidance was incomplete
seriousGuidance for some medicines to be given when needed was missing or incomplete. Instructions for prescribed creams and some handwritten medicine records also had weaknesses.
“Where people required medicines to be administered 'as and when required', protocols were not consistently completed to guide staff of how to administer these.” from the report
Care records lacked detail
needs fixingCare plans, reviews, food diaries, personal hygiene charts and activity records were incomplete or inconsistent. This could make it harder for new staff to provide personalised care.
“We found inconsistencies in the level of detail included in people's care plans.” from the report
Checks did not identify all problems
seriousThe home's quality checks failed to identify all the shortfalls. Some fire safety actions had remained unfinished for nine months, and cleaning records had gaps.
“This meant the governance of the service was ineffective because systems and processes that monitored quality and safety, were not sufficiently robust.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure every person's risks, including smoking and recurring health problems, have a clear and current care plan?
- 02How are 'as and when required' medicines, prescribed creams and handwritten medicine records checked now?
- 03How do you make sure new staff have enough written information about each person's mental health needs, interests and preferences?
- 04What action was taken to repair the broken window restrictors and address the fire door problems identified in the report?
- 05How are quality and safety audits now checked to make sure they identify and fix problems promptly?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 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
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- September 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 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
75 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottinghamshire
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. 63 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
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.