CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oakland Grange
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including visitors, admissions, testing, PPE, cleaning and social distancing.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about the home's infection prevention and control arrangements.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 4 March 2021. It looked at how the home was preventing and controlling coronavirus infections.
Inspectors were assured that visitors, new admissions, people living at the home and staff were protected through testing, distancing and safe use of PPE. They also found strong cleaning arrangements, regular audits and an up-to-date infection control policy.
The home was inspected but not rated overall. Safe was also marked inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give the home a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating.
Single bedrooms and space
The home had single-occupancy bedrooms and spacious communal areas. Inspectors said this supported social distancing and reduced infection risk.
“The premises were spacious, and all bedrooms were single occupancy.” from the report
Cleaning
Cleaning had been increased during the pandemic. Frequently touched surfaces were cleaned as often as hourly, with records kept.
“Frequent touch points had been cleaned as often as hourly, with records evidencing this.” from the report
Trained staff and PPE
Staff had infection control and PPE training. Their practices were monitored, and enough PPE was available for staff and visitors.
“Staff had received training in infection prevention and control and on using Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) safely.” from the report
Keeping families connected
The home followed government visiting guidance and supported contact with relatives, including safe visits at the end of life.
“People had been supported to stay in touch with relatives and families and had been supported to spend time with people at the end of their lives in a safe manner.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are frequent touch points cleaned now, and how do you record and check this?
- 02How do you make sure all staff and visitors have enough PPE?
- 03How is staff infection prevention and control practice monitored now?
- 04How do you support visits and contact with relatives while managing infection risks?
- 05What are the home's current ratings for caring, effective, responsive and well-led care?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated overall. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 April 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.
What inspectors found, November 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but capacity records and hot water checks needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 19 and 20 October 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staffing, recruitment, complaints and quality records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Effective was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found caring staff, enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, personalised care and good management.
The main shortfalls were in recording people's mental capacity assessments and best-interests decisions. Hot water in three rooms was above the recommended temperature. Creams were not always dated when opened, and written information and apologies were not always provided after accidents. The home took action during the inspection to address these issues.
Kind and compassionate staff
People and relatives consistently described staff as caring. Inspectors observed positive, supportive interactions and staff showed that they knew people well.
“People were supported by kind, caring and compassionate staff.” from the report
Personalised care and choice
Care plans were based on people's needs and preferences. Staff offered choices about daily routines, meals and where people spent their time.
“Care and support were centred on the individual needs of each person.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels consistently met the assessed needs of people. Recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“There were enough staff deployed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Improved management checks
The home had strengthened its audits and action plans since the previous inspection. The earlier breach about quality assurance was no longer present.
“The quality assurance process had been improved and included structured audits of areas such as care plans, infection control, medicines, accidents and incidents.” from the report
Hot water was too hot
seriousThree checked hot water outlets were above the recommended temperature. This could put people, particularly those living with dementia, at risk of harm.
“the valves were not adjusted correctly and were delivering water above the recommended temperature, which put people, particularly those living with dementia, at risk.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingRecords did not always show how capacity decisions were assessed or why decisions made on someone's behalf were in their best interests. Family views were not always recorded.
“Staff did not always record assessments of people's capacity or decisions made on their behalf.” from the report
Creams were not always dated
minorStaff did not consistently date topical creams when they were opened. The manager reminded staff and added this to the medicines audit.
“we found this was not done consistently.” from the report
Written accident information
needs fixingThe duty of candour policy was not fully followed. Relatives received information and apologies verbally, but not in writing as required by the home's policy.
“Although the registered manager had been giving information and apologies verbally to relatives, they had not been providing the information in writing, due to an oversight.” from the report
- 01How do you now record mental capacity assessments and best-interests decisions for each person?
- 02How are relatives' views recorded when decisions are made on someone's behalf?
- 03Have all hot water outlets been checked and adjusted, and how often are they now audited?
- 04How do you make sure topical creams are dated when opened and not used beyond their use-by date?
- 05How do you now provide written information and apologies after accidents or other significant events?
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 18 November 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 Grange
4 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of Portsmouth
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 £1,240 a week. 38 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.