CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oakfield Croft
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments and good infection control. They noted that some as-needed medicine guidance was too brief and some cream application records had gaps.
- Effective?
- Good
- People’s health, nutrition and dietary needs were monitored, and staff received induction, training and supervision. The home worked with GPs, district nurses and other professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff knew people’s preferences and were observed treating them with kindness, dignity and respect. People were supported to make choices and maintain independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reviewed monthly. Activities, visiting arrangements and communication support were available, but many end-of-life plans needed further discussions with families.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had regular audits, action plans and a service improvement plan. Staff and relatives said managers were approachable and communication was good.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some medicines records and end-of-life planning needing improvement.
This was the home’s first inspection since it registered in March 2020. The inspection was unannounced and included visits, discussions with people and relatives, observations of care, and checks of care, medicines, staff and quality records.
Inspectors rated all five areas Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. They found enough staff, suitable training, clean surroundings, safe recruitment, good communication with relatives and personalised care plans.
There were some gaps. Guidance for some medicines used when needed was too brief, and records for applying some creams were incomplete. Many end-of-life care plans also needed further discussion with families.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about the staff. Inspectors observed warm interactions, and staff supported privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
“We observed and heard positive interactions throughout our inspection. Staff knew people's needs and their likes, dislikes and preferences.” from the report
Good staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff completed an induction, mandatory training, shadow shifts and ongoing supervision.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs. Feedback from relatives and staff was positive about the staffing levels at the home.” from the report
Clean and well-prepared environment
The home was very clean, staff used the correct protective equipment, and infection control arrangements included regular testing and visiting procedures.
“The home was very clean throughout, with cleaning schedules altered to take into account additional cleaning of touch points needed due to the COVID-19 pandemic.” from the report
Personalised care and activities
Care plans described people’s needs, preferences and required support. A weekly timetable included group and one-to-one activities, with purpose-built shared facilities.
“Person centred care plans were in place which identified people's individual needs and provided clear guidance for staff in the support people needed to meet the identified needs.” from the report
Open management and checks
Managers used regular audits and action plans to monitor quality. Staff and relatives said managers were approachable and communication was good.
“A robust quality assurance system was in place, with a range of regular audits being completed. Action plans were written to address any issues found.” from the report
Some medicine guidance was too brief
needs fixingGuidance for medicines given when needed varied in detail. Some guidance did not clearly explain how a person would show staff that they needed the medicine.
“Others were brief and did not clearly identify how the person would inform the staff they needed the medicine.” from the report
Cream records had gaps
needs fixingSome records did not show clearly when topical creams had been applied, especially when they were prescribed more than once a day.
“We noted there were some gaps in the cream records, especially where the cream was to be applied more than once per day.” from the report
End-of-life wishes needed more discussion
minorMany end-of-life care plans did not yet record the person’s or family’s wishes fully. The report says COVID-19 visiting restrictions made these discussions more difficult.
“End of life care plans were in place; however, many stated that further discussions were needed with the person's family to identify any wishes for their end of life care.” from the report
- 01How are you making sure guidance for medicines given when needed clearly explains how each person will show they need them?
- 02What checks now make sure every application of topical cream is recorded, including creams used more than once a day?
- 03How will you discuss and record my relative’s end-of-life wishes and preferred care?
- 04Which floors and types of care are currently open, and when is the nursing floor expected to open?
- 05How will you keep relatives updated about changes in my relative’s health or wellbeing?
This was the first planned inspection of the newly registered care home and covered all five key questions; the nursing floor on the second floor was not open at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 May 2021 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 Croft
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- May 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 March 2020.
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 Trafford
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. 91 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.