CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oaklands
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Medicines records were not always complete or clear, including records of medicine changes. One person's risk assessment could not be accessed during the inspection, and some cleaning and maintenance issues were found.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and preferences were assessed and care plans were reviewed. Staff had relevant training and supervision, and people were supported with food, health appointments and informed choices.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed kind and respectful interactions. People were involved in decisions about their care, and staff promoted privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and supported people's goals, relationships, interests and community activities. People knew how to complain and information was available in accessible formats.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The service had quality checks, regular meetings and systems for learning from incidents. People and staff said they could share their views and approach the manager with concerns.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found medicines and some safety records were not always reliable.
This was an unannounced inspection on 24 July 2019. Inspectors spoke with three people and three staff members, reviewed care and medicines records, checked recruitment files and examined management information.
The overall rating was Good. Care was rated Good in Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People described kind and respectful staff, support with health, food, activities and independence, and said they felt safe.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement, having fallen from Good at the previous inspection. Medicines records did not always clearly show changes or administration, one risk assessment could not be accessed during the visit, and some cleaning and maintenance needed attention.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw positive interactions and found that staff treated people with dignity. People were involved in decisions about their support.
“We observed positive interactions between people and staff throughout the day. Staff were kind, caring and tactile.” from the report
Support for independence
People were supported to build daily living skills, attend appointments and use the local community independently where appropriate.
“People's independence was promoted.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records included people's interests, needs and preferences. Staff supported people to work towards personal goals, including moving towards their own accommodation.
“People were supported by staff to identify and achieve their goals and aspirations.” from the report
Good leadership systems
The report found quality audits, staff meetings and systems for learning when things went wrong. People and staff were positive about the manager.
“The provider had quality assurance systems in place.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousMedicine systems were not fully effective. Records did not always show clearly when changes had been made, and one handwritten administration record lacked two staff signatures.
“Medicine systems and processes were not fully effective to ensure people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Missing risk information
seriousA risk assessment for one person with a history of significant risks was not available during the inspection. This meant inspectors could not be assured that staff had the guidance needed to keep people safe.
“This did not provide assurance staff had the relevant guidance on how to keep this person and others safe.” from the report
Cleaning and maintenance
needs fixingSome areas needed attention, including an incompletely sealed shower tray and greasy kitchen tiles. The manager said a maintenance person had been recruited to address these issues.
“For example, the sealant around the shower tray was not fully sealed and the kitchens tiles were greasy.” from the report
- 01How are medicine changes recorded, checked and audited now?
- 02How do you make sure every staff member can access each person's current risk assessment?
- 03What action was taken to clean the kitchen tiles and repair the shower tray sealant?
- 04How are medicine administration records checked for missing signatures or missed doses?
- 05What improvements have been made since the Safe rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions; Safe was reassessed as Requires Improvement and the other four areas were rated Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 October 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.
What inspectors found, November 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and person-centred support, with only a smoking shelter still under discussion.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 14 November 2016. One inspector spoke with four people, the registered manager and two care staff. They reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicine records, staff recruitment files, maintenance records and quality audits.
Inspectors rated the home Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. They found enough staff, safe medicine systems, suitable training and good support for people's physical and mental health.
People were involved in decisions about their care, meals, activities and daily life. Inspectors found that staff promoted independence, listened to people's views and acted on their suggestions. The home's quality checks were described as robust.
Promoting independence
Staff supported people to make choices and work towards personal goals. This included managing medicines, attending college, volunteering and going out independently.
“People's independence was supported in all aspects of their daily lives.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored and recorded safely. People who were working towards managing their own medicines had risk assessments and support.
“People's medicine was managed safely, which included where people managed their own medicine, as assessments of risk were undertaken and discussed with the person involved.” from the report
Kind and respectful relationships
People felt able to talk openly with staff. Inspectors saw staff respecting privacy, dignity, personal beliefs and individual choices.
“We found people were confident to approach staff and spend time with them, we observed positive professional relationships, with everyone speaking openly about things that were important to them.” from the report
People's views acted on
Residents could influence the service through meetings and questionnaires. Suggestions such as new furniture and a shared holiday were acted upon.
“People's views were sought and their comments were listened to and acted upon, which meant people knew their views would bring about change.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The provider and manager used several audits and inspections to identify and complete improvements.
“The provider had quality assurance systems that were robust.” from the report
Smoking shelter not yet provided
minorPeople had asked for an outside smoking shelter to protect them from bad weather. It was still being discussed when inspectors visited.
“One issue remained outstanding from a recent meeting and that was for the provision of a smoking shelter outside of the home, to protect people who smoke from the weather.” from the report
- 01What progress has been made with providing the smoking shelter requested by residents?
- 02How will you support my relative to work towards their own goals and greater independence?
- 03How are medicines managed if my relative wants to take responsibility for them?
- 04How will my relative be involved in reviewing their care plan and choosing activities?
- 05How do you monitor whether staff training and supervision continue to meet residents' needs?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and providing ratings for each one. This explanation was written from the published report of 29 November 2016 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 Oaklands
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 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
78 live-in carers within about an hour of Derby
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 £1,260 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
“Rachel is a quietly spoken, extremely caring person and looked after Val very well.”
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.