CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oakland Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and well-managed care, with improvements since the previous Requires Improvement rating.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 and 14 March 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, a relative, staff and a visiting health professional. They observed care and medicines being given, and checked care records, medicines records, staff files, training and audits.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that medicines, staffing, recruitment, infection control, nutrition and hydration were managed safely and effectively.
People were described as being treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care was personalised, activities were available, complaints were handled properly and people could be supported at the end of their lives.
The previous inspection in January 2017 rated the home Requires Improvement overall and in most areas. The report says improvements had addressed concerns about medicines, avoidable accidents, nutrition and hydration, recruitment checks and audits. No regulations were breached.
Improved safety systems
The home had addressed earlier concerns about medicines, accident prevention and recruitment checks. Medicines audits, storage, staff training and competency checks were found to be satisfactory.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and that the monthly medicines audits were completed satisfactorily.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed positive relationships and prompt help. People said staff were kind, helpful, attentive and respectful.
“People and relatives said the care was of a high standard and thought that staff were kind, caring, helpful, attentive and respectful.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's histories, likes, dislikes and preferences. People were involved in care planning and monthly reviews.
“Care plans were written in a person-centred way and daily records completed appropriately.” from the report
Good oversight
Audits covered medicines, falls, staff files, health and safety, fire safety, infection control and the premises. Actions were taken when improvements were identified.
“Audits had been completed appropriately.” from the report
End-of-life support
People could remain at the home at the end of their lives where possible. The home worked with healthcare professionals, including a local hospice.
“People were supported at the end of their life to have a comfortable, dignified and pain-free death.” from the report
Care review records
minorPeople took part in monthly care reviews, but the records did not always show how they had been involved. The manager said this would be recorded more clearly.
“Whilst people were involved in their monthly reviews, it was not always recorded how, within the care record.” from the report
Activities staffing
minorThere was no dedicated activities co-ordinator during the inspection. The home was preparing a job description and planned to recruit to the post, while other activities were still being offered.
“The home did not have a dedicated activities co-ordinator, but was in the process of drafting a job description and had plans to recruit to this new post.” from the report
- 01How do you now record exactly how each person has been involved in their monthly care plan review?
- 02Has the dedicated activities co-ordinator been recruited, and what activities are available for people who stay in their rooms or are cared for in bed?
- 03How do you record whether a Lasting Power of Attorney covers health and welfare, property and affairs, or both?
- 04How do you monitor food and drink intake for people who are at risk of poor nutrition or dehydration?
- 05What changes were made to medicines management after the previous inspection, and how are staff competencies checked now?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five quality areas, following concerns found at the January 2017 inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 June 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.
What inspectors found, February 2017
Oakland Court is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but important safety, nutrition and management checks were not reliable.
This was an unannounced inspection on 9 January 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed care, reviewed six care records and checked records about medicines, staffing, training and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Caring and Responsive. People were treated kindly, their privacy and dignity were respected, and they were supported with personal care, activities and complaints. Staff were available and helped people contact healthcare professionals.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall, and also for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found medicines were not always managed correctly, risks of falls had not always been reduced, some recruitment checks were incomplete, and two people did not always receive reliable support with food and drinks. Quality checks had not always found and fixed problems quickly.
The report says improvements made after earlier breaches in 2014 had initially addressed those concerns. However, this inspection found new or continuing shortfalls. The registered persons said they would introduce stronger checks and address the issues.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people with respect and kindness. Staff supported privacy, dignity and personal choices.
“During our inspection we saw that people were treated with respect and with kindness.” from the report
Enough staff
Staffing levels were sufficient during the inspection and in the previous week. People received care promptly when they asked for it.
“We concluded that there were enough staff on duty because we saw people promptly being given all of the care for which they asked.” from the report
Activities and personal interests
People were offered regular activities such as arts and crafts, quizzes, gentle exercise and music. They did not have to join in.
“There's something going on here pretty much every day. You don't have to join in if you don't want to.” from the report
Open teamwork
Staff described approachable leadership and felt able to raise concerns. Handover meetings and staff meetings supported communication between shifts.
“There was an open and relaxed approach to running the service.” from the report
Medicine errors and storage
seriousMedicines had not always been given or recorded correctly. One person became unwell after not receiving a medicine for a prolonged period, and medicine audits had not been completed for more than six months.
“This mistake had resulted in them becoming unwell.” from the report
Risk of falls
seriousA flimsy cord barrier had not properly reduced the risk of people falling down stairs leading to a fire escape door.
“We noted that suitable steps had not been taken to reduce the risk of people falling down a flight of stairs that led to a fire escape door.” from the report
Food and drinks monitoring
needs fixingTwo people at risk of poor nutrition did not always have their weights checked often enough. Drink checks were missed or recorded poorly, and there was no plan for responding when they drank too little.
“In both cases this was not being done in the right way.” from the report
Recruitment checks
needs fixingChecks on two new staff members did not fully cover their work history or why they had left previous care jobs. The home said it would complete the missing checks and strengthen its procedure.
“These mistakes had reduced the registered persons' ability to ensure that they had obtained all of the necessary assurances about the previous good conduct of the people concerned.” from the report
Quality and fire safety checks
seriousQuality checks had not always led to problems being fixed quickly. Some fire safety checks had also not been completed correctly, reducing protection in a fire.
“This had reduced the level of protection people could be given in the event of a fire.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicine audits, and how do you check that medicines are given, recorded and stored at the correct temperature?
- 02What has replaced the cord barrier by the stairs leading to the fire escape door?
- 03How are people's weights and drinks now monitored when they are at risk of poor nutrition or dehydration?
- 04Have the missing employment histories and reasons for leaving previous care jobs been checked for all relevant staff?
- 05How often are fire safety checks completed, and how are problems followed up until they are fixed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, with observations, discussions and reviews of care and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 February 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 Oakland Court
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,020 to £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.