CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oakfield House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Staff understood people's individual risks, including risks linked to equipment, choking and anxiety. Inspectors found enough staff and clear medicines records, with staff trained and checked before administering medicines.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before they moved in, and staff had training suited to the people they supported. Staff worked with health professionals and supported people's dietary, sensory and health needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- People appeared relaxed with staff and were supported to communicate, make choices and maintain dignity, privacy and independence. Relatives spoke positively about the care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected individual wishes and needs and were reviewed regularly. Staff adjusted support as people's needs changed and helped people maintain important relationships and pursue activities they enjoyed.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider and senior staff checked the quality of care and acted on what they found. Relatives and staff were encouraged to give feedback and make suggestions.
What inspectors found, January 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, and the home remained Good since the last inspection.
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection on 23 and 24 November 2017. One inspector observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment, training and quality checks.
The home supported 20 people with autism, some also having learning disabilities. Inspectors found enough staff, good attention to safety, medicines managed properly, suitable training and good access to food and health services.
People were treated with kindness and encouraged to make choices. Care plans were personalised and reviewed, and staff supported people to maintain relationships, try new experiences and manage anxiety.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home was rated Good at the previous inspection too, so this report says the service remained Good.
Personalised support
Staff adapted care to each person's communication, interests, health needs and anxieties. People were not treated as if they all needed the same support.
“They [staff] care for everyone as an individual. They see not one person living there is the same. They don't treat them as a block.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions about their rooms, clothes, activities and, where safe, their medicines. Staff used communication methods that worked for each person.
“Staff recognised people's rights to dignity, independence and privacy.” from the report
Health support
The home worked with health professionals and helped people access care promptly. Staff also used individual plans to make health appointments less stressful.
“Records we saw showed people had regular access to a wide range of health professional including GPs, dentists and speech and language specialists and mental health specialist” from the report
Open management
Relatives and staff were invited to share views, and managers used checks and feedback to develop the home.
“Senior staff and the registered manager regularly checked people were receiving a good standard of care and took action based on the findings of the checks they made.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you support my relative's particular communication needs and signs of anxiety?
- 02How would you help my relative manage medicines independently, if this was suitable and safe?
- 03How would you support my relative during health appointments, including any arrangements to reduce distress?
- 04How are relatives involved in care plan reviews and decisions about healthcare?
- 05How would you support my relative to maintain relationships, interests and activities outside the home?
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the accommodation and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 January 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 Oakfield House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- January 2018Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 September 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 Birmingham
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 £950 to £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.