CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oakfield at Yardley Hastings
Not yet rated: the CQC has not published a rated inspection for this home, which is usual for a new registration.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Oakfield at Yardley Hastings was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with Outstanding leadership.
This was a planned, unannounced inspection on 3 December 2019. One inspector reviewed information from other organisations, spoke with people using the service and staff, and examined care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home supported people with learning disabilities and autism through residential care and supported living. Inspectors found that people were safe, treated with kindness and involved in choices about their care, activities and daily lives. Medicines, staffing, training, healthcare and complaints systems were found to be managed well.
All five areas were rated Good except well-led, which was rated Outstanding. The Effective rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. The overall rating remained Good.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm and friendly interactions. Staff knew people well and supported their dignity, communication and personal preferences.
“People were supported with kindness and care from staff.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Medicines were stored securely and staff competencies were checked. Recruitment checks were completed and staffing matched people's assessed needs.
“There were enough staff deployed to provide people with their individual care, and to enable people to choose which staff they wanted to support them.” from the report
Strong leadership
The management team used audits, feedback and incident reviews to improve care. Inspectors described the leadership as exceptional and forward thinking.
“The provider demonstrated exceptional leadership and inspiring forward thinking.” from the report
Community involvement
People were supported to work, volunteer, attend activities and maintain important relationships. The provider also built links with the local community.
“Oakfield at Yardley Hastings were an integral part of the community, and the provider worked with members of the community to further enrich people's lives.” from the report
Building size
minorThe home was larger than current best practice guidance and was registered for up to ten people. Inspectors said the design and discreet signs helped reduce the negative impact, but this is still something families may wish to understand.
“The service supports people in a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties.” from the report
- 01How does the larger building affect people's experience, privacy and ability to live as independently as possible?
- 02How will you support a person if their health needs change and they require facilities such as a ceiling hoist or wet room?
- 03How are people involved in choosing the staff who support them and in decisions about their future accommodation?
- 04How do you record and review medicines support for each person, including opportunities for people to manage their own medicines?
- 05How do people and relatives give feedback, and what recent changes have been made as a result?
This inspection covered the care home premises and care provided, but CQC does not regulate the premises used for the supported living service; the inspection was unannounced and examined all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 January 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, June 2017
Oakfield at Yardley Hastings was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, caring and person-centred support, but staff training needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 and 8 May 2017. One inspector visited the home, spoke with people, a relative and six staff, and reviewed care records, recruitment, training and quality monitoring records.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, caring, responsive and well-led were rated Good. People felt safe, staff treated them with dignity, and support was tailored to their choices, activities and goals.
Effective was rated Requires Improvement. Some staff had not completed required training or refresher training, including training on safeguarding, the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The report says this created a risk that staff might not have all the knowledge and skills needed.
Safe support
Risk assessments gave staff clear guidance while allowing people to take positive risks and remain as independent as possible.
“Risk assessments were in place and provided staff with current, detailed information about how to support people to take part in the activities they enjoyed in a safe way” from the report
Independence
People were supported to develop life skills, pursue personal goals and move towards greater independence.
“People were supported to develop life and social skills and gain as much independence as possible, using individually created activity programmes.” from the report
Dignity and respect
Staff knew people's preferences and treated them respectfully. Inspectors saw that people's privacy and personal space were respected.
“People were treated with dignity and respect; they were relaxed and comfortable in the presence of staff and clearly felt at ease in their presence.” from the report
Activities and choice
Each person had an individual activity programme, with support for hobbies, education, voluntary work and community groups.
“We observed staff supporting people to engage in activities in an enthusiastic and positive way.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff had confidence in the management team. Staff described an open culture focused on person-centred support and improvement.
“There was an open, inclusive culture in the service that emphasised continuous improvement and supporting people towards independence.” from the report
Incomplete staff training
needs fixingSome staff had not completed required training or refresher training. Inspectors said this could mean staff did not have all the skills and knowledge needed to protect people from harm.
“Records showed that staff were working through this training, however some key areas had not yet been completed.” from the report
Mental capacity knowledge
needs fixingStaff had not consistently received training on the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This created a risk that decisions might not always be made with the right legal understanding.
“Staff had not consistently received training in Mental Capacity; there was a risk that staff would not have an appropriate understanding of the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005” from the report
- 01Have all staff now completed safeguarding refresher training, and how is this kept up to date?
- 02Have all staff completed training on the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards?
- 03How do you check that staff understand best-interest decisions and provide the least restrictive support?
- 04How are each person's independence goals and activity programmes reviewed and updated?
- 05How do audits and action plans show that improvements to training have been completed?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality and safety of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 June 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 Oakfield at Yardley Hastings
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Outstanding
Read what inspectors found at Oakfield at Yardley Hastings →
- June 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Oakfield at Yardley Hastings →
- June 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 June 2016.
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 West Northamptonshire
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 £1,280 a week. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
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.