CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oakland Village & Community Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and inspectors found suitable safeguarding procedures, risk assessments, staffing levels, medicines arrangements and infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and choices. Staff were trained, people received suitable food and healthcare support, and improvements had been made in applying the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected in this report, so no current rating is given.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected in this report, so no current rating is given.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective checks and audits, good involvement of people and staff, and leaders who promoted person-centred care. The previous governance breach had been resolved.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Oakland Village & Community Care Centre is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with improvements since the last inspection.
The unannounced inspection took place on 20 April 2022. One inspector reviewed care records, management records and policies, spoke with six people and six staff, and observed how staff supported people.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective and Well-led were also rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable risk assessments, good support with food and healthcare, and care that respected people's choices.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in May 2019. Improvements were found in Effective and Well-led. The earlier breach about governance had been addressed.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. The home had also provided extra staff for activities and additional support when needed.
“There were enough staff to support people's needs.” from the report
Kind, individual care
People said staff were kind and knew them well. Inspectors saw staff listening to people and following their individual preferences.
“People told us the staff were kind, thoughtful and knew them well.” from the report
Good support with health
The home made referrals when people's health changed and followed guidance from health professionals. Staff supported people with food, drinks and healthcare needs.
“Records showed appropriate referrals had been made when people's needs changed.” from the report
Improved leadership
The home had strengthened its checks and monitoring since the previous inspection. Audits were used to identify trends and make changes.
“The provider had robust governance processes in place.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you make sure staffing levels remain enough when people's needs change or staff are absent?
- 02How would you support my relative if they developed swallowing difficulties, lost weight or needed new equipment?
- 03How are decisions made if my relative cannot make a particular decision for themselves?
- 04What activities and choices are available for someone who prefers to spend time in their room?
- 05How do you involve relatives in reviews of care, menus and changes to the home?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected in this report, and ratings for uninspected questions were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 May 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, May 2019
Requires Improvement overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but training, capacity checks and quality monitoring needed improvement.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 12 March 2019. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicines records, complaints, incidents and quality checks.
People were found to be safe, treated kindly and supported in a personalised way. There were enough staff, medicines were managed safely, activities were provided and staff understood the needs of people living with dementia.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Effective and well-led were rated Requires Improvement because some staff training was out of date, mental capacity checks were not always completed and quality systems had not consistently led to improvements. Safe, caring and responsive were rated Good.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs safely and respond promptly when help was requested.
“There were enough staff to ensure that people's needs were met safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff had caring relationships with people and supported their dignity, privacy, choices and independence.
“We saw caring interaction between staff and people throughout the inspection. They chatted and joked with people and had time to put people at ease when needed.” from the report
Understanding dementia
Staff understood people living with dementia and adapted their communication and support to individual needs.
“Staff have an excellent understanding of dementia.” from the report
Personalised support and activities
Care plans included people's preferences and communication needs. Inspectors saw activities and individual support being provided during the day.
“People had care plans which were personalised and detailed.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingCapacity assessments had not always been completed when people could not make particular decisions. Some restrictions and conditions linked to DoLS were not clearly understood or recorded.
“However, when people were unable to make their own decisions, capacity assessments had not always been completed to demonstrate why some restrictions were required to protect people from harm.” from the report
Out-of-date training
needs fixingSome staff had not refreshed important training for several years, including safeguarding and fire safety. Staff also said end of life training was not available often enough.
“Staff did not always have sufficient opportunity to update their knowledge and skills through training.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
seriousThe provider's checks had not consistently led to action. Some issues identified earlier were still unresolved, and there was no effective audit of whether care plans were accurate and current.
“The providers systems for monitoring and improving quality were not always effective and didn't always drive the change required.” from the report
Care plans not always current
seriousSome care plans did not reflect changes in people's needs. Important information, including end of life and behaviour support details, was not always included in the main care records or easy to find.
“Although staff understood people's needs well, people's plans were not always up to date.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure every person has a current mental capacity assessment where needed?
- 02How do staff check and follow any conditions attached to a person's DoLS authorisation?
- 03Which staff training is now overdue, particularly safeguarding, fire safety and end of life care training?
- 04How are care plans audited to make sure they reflect changes in people's needs and include end of life and behaviour support information?
- 05What actions have been completed since the inspection to improve the provider's quality monitoring system?
This was an unannounced scheduled inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous inspection on 9 June 2016 rated the service Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 May 2019 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 Village & Community Care Centre
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- May 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Oakland Village & Community Care Centre →
- May 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Oakland Village & Community Care Centre →
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 January 2013.
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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.