CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Oakhurst Court Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were supported by staff who knew their needs and how to manage risks. Inspectors found one medicines practice that was not safe enough, but the manager acted immediately.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care was adapted when needs changed. Staff had the training and supervision needed, and people were supported with food, healthcare and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed to be kind, caring, friendly and attentive. One person's care in a communal area would have been more dignified in private, and this was addressed immediately.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's preferences, life history, communication needs and interests. People were supported with activities, family relationships, complaints and end of life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had effective systems for checking quality and safety, and staff felt supported. The home had been without a registered manager for several months, while the new manager was in the process of registering with CQC.
What inspectors found, July 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but medicines practice and privacy needed attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 June 2022. Inspectors spoke with three people, five relatives and five staff. They observed care and checked care records, medicines records and recruitment files.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives spoke positively about the staff. Inspectors found that risks were managed, care was personalised, healthcare needs were followed up and people were supported to keep relationships and take part in activities.
The inspection was partly prompted by concerns about governance and safeguarding. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from those concerns. They did identify an occasion when medicines practice was not safe enough and an occasion when care would have been more dignified in private. Both issues were addressed during the inspection.
Staff knew people well
Inspectors found that staff understood people's needs and preferences. People and relatives were consistently positive about the staff and support.
“People and relatives were all consistently positive about the staff and the support they received.” from the report
Risks were managed
Care plans and risk assessments gave staff clear information about risks such as skin damage, poor nutrition and pressure areas. The home also had emergency evacuation plans.
“Detailed risk assessments and care plans were in place, so staff knew how to support people.” from the report
Personalised activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in activities, outings and celebrations. Staff helped people maintain family relationships and supported one person to attend a family wedding.
“People had access to a range of activities.” from the report
Positive leadership and monitoring
Inspectors found effective systems to monitor quality and safety. Staff said they felt supported and able to share their views.
“There were effective systems and processes used to assess, monitor and review the quality and safety of the service and manage risk.” from the report
Medicine safety practice
needs fixingA thickener for liquids had been left where people could access it. The manager dealt with this immediately, but it shows that medicine administration practice was not always followed safely.
“We observed that best practice was not always followed when medicines were administered.” from the report
Privacy during care
needs fixingOne person was supported with part of their care in a communal area. Inspectors said this would have been more dignified in private, and refresher dignity training was arranged.
“We observed one person being supported in a communal area with an aspect of their care needs which would have been more dignified if done in privacy.” from the report
No registered manager at the visit
minorThe home had been without a registered manager for several months. A new manager had been in post since March 2022 and was applying to register with CQC, with support from the previous registered manager.
“The service had been without a registered manager for several months however the previous registered manager still worked for the provider and was visiting the service regularly to support the new manager.” from the report
- 01What checks are now in place to stop medicines or liquid thickeners being left where people can reach them?
- 02How do you make sure all personal care is provided in private and with dignity?
- 03Has the new manager now registered with CQC, and who is responsible for the home until that process is complete?
- 04How will you show us that the concerns about governance and safeguarding have continued to be monitored?
- 05How are people's individual activities, communication needs and end of life wishes kept up to date?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions; the previous Good ratings had remained unchanged, and the inspection was prompted partly by governance and safeguarding concerns. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 July 2022 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, August 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, personalised care and better leadership, but some daily records were not completed promptly.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 10 August 2021. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good overall, with Good ratings for Safe, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, detailed risk assessments and improved person-centred care. People had activities matched to their interests, and relatives said communication had improved.
Some daily notes were not completed in a timely way. This made it difficult to see from the records what some people had eaten and drunk that day. The manager gave assurances this would be improved and said it would be checked at the next inspection.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published in July 2019, when there was a breach of regulation. Inspectors found improvements had been made and the home was no longer in breach. This inspection only looked at Safe, Responsive and Well-led, so the other ratings were carried forward from the earlier comprehensive inspection.
Safe staffing
People and relatives said there were enough staff, and staff said people did not have to wait long for care.
“There are enough staff on each shift to provide people's care. Residents do not have to wait for care when they need it.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines records contained key safety information, and inspectors found no gaps in administration records. Ordering, storage, disposal and staff competency checks were also reviewed.
“No gaps in the administration of people's medicines were found.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans had been rewritten to reflect people's individual needs, strengths and preferences. People and relatives were involved in developing and reviewing them.
“People's care plans contained details which reflected their individual needs and strengths which staff responded to.” from the report
Activities and inclusion
The home offered activities based on people's interests and monitored participation to identify possible social isolation.
“The provider had improved activities for people to ensure they were person-centred.” from the report
Improved communication
Relatives said communication from management had improved, including updates about health and wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic.
“Relatives gave feedback about how through the COVID-19 pandemic they were kept updated and continually involved.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What checks are now in place to make sure daily food and drink notes are completed promptly?
- 02What is the current position on the manager's registration with the CQC?
- 03What further changes are planned to make the environment more dementia friendly?
- 04How will you make sure activities continue to reflect each person's interests, including people who choose not to join group activities?
- 05How are relatives kept updated about health concerns, incidents and changes in care?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 August 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 Oakhurst Court Nursing Home
8 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2021GoodSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2018Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2017Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 December 2010.
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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.