CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oaklands (Essex)
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; safety improved to Good, but well-led care still needs consistent improvement.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 18 and 25 June 2021. One inspector spoke with people, staff, relatives and managers, observed care, and checked care records, staff files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe. Inspectors found medicines were given as prescribed, infection control was effective, the environment was clean, risks were recorded and there were enough staff at the time of the inspection.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Management and quality checks had improved, but the CQC said good practice needed to be consistent over time. The home had no manager registered with the CQC, although an application had been completed but not submitted.
The overall rating improved from Inadequate to Requires Improvement. The home was no longer in breach of the regulations, and it left Special Measures.
Medicines were safer
Records checked showed medicines were given at the right times and according to prescribing instructions. Staff administering medicines were trained and competent.
“These demonstrated each person received their medicines at the times they needed them and in line with the prescriber's instructions.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home used protective equipment safely, supported testing and visits, and had effective hygiene arrangements.
“We were assured the provider was promoting safety through the layout and hygiene practices of the premises and making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Staffing and risk management
Staffing was appropriate during the inspection. Risks, including fire risks and individual evacuation plans, were recorded and monitored.
“The deployment of staff was appropriate and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Improved communication
Relatives and staff reported better communication and management since the previous inspection. Relatives received updates about changes in people's condition, medicines and visiting arrangements.
“Relatives and staff told us communication within the service was much improved.” from the report
Learning from mistakes
The home had introduced better checks and a process for learning from complaints, safeguarding concerns and accidents.
“This inspection highlighted lessons had been learned and improvements made since our last inspection.” from the report
Leadership still needed to settle
needs fixingThe well-led rating remained Requires Improvement because the CQC needed to see consistent good practice over time. The manager was not yet registered with the CQC.
“However, we could not improve the rating for 'Well-Led' because to do this requires consistent good practice over time.” from the report
Future staffing levels
minorRelatives were satisfied with staffing at the time, but some were concerned about whether staffing would remain sufficient if more people moved into the home.
“However, concerns were expressed about future staffing levels and once the number of people using the service increased.” from the report
- 01Has the manager's application for CQC registration now been submitted and accepted?
- 02How do you make sure quality checks remain effective and improvements continue consistently?
- 03How will staffing levels be maintained if the number of people living at the home increases?
- 04What changes were made to medicines management after the previous inspection, and how are these checks reviewed now?
- 05How are families kept informed if there is a change in a resident's condition, medicines or visiting arrangements?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection focused on Safe and Well-led, including infection control; ratings for other key questions were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 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.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Rated Inadequate and remains in special measures; inspectors found serious problems with medicines, risk management, infection control and leadership.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 1 and 11 December 2020. Inspectors spoke with four people, eight relatives and staff, reviewed care and recruitment records, observed care and checked infection control arrangements.
The home was not safe. Medicines were not always given as prescribed, records had omissions, risks were not always recorded or monitored, and infection control practices were not always followed. The systems used to check quality did not reliably identify or correct these problems.
There were some improvements since the previous inspection, including staffing, dining and some records. Effective and Responsive improved from Inadequate to Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led remained Inadequate, and the overall rating remained Inadequate. The home has been rated Inadequate for two consecutive inspections.
Staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, with prompt responses to call alarms. Recruitment checks were also carried out safely.
“The deployment of staff was appropriate and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Meals and nutrition
The dining experience had improved. People were not rushed, and staff helped with meals respectfully.
“Improvements had been made since January 2020 to ensure the dining experience for people was positive.” from the report
Activities
People were supported to join social activities, including one-to-one activities, singing and dancing.
“People were supported and encouraged to take part in social activities.” from the report
Complaints
The complaints process was in place, and recorded complaints were investigated and answered openly.
“Complaints logged were investigated and responded to in an open and transparent way.” from the report
Medicines
seriousMedicines were not always given according to instructions. Records contained nine omissions, and arrangements for controlled drugs and as-needed medicines were not safe enough.
“Suitable arrangements were not in place to ensure the proper and safe management of medicines and this placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
Risks and infection control
seriousSome risks, including dehydration and stoma-related risks, were not recorded or monitored. Staff did not always use gloves or sanitise their hands between interactions.
“Not all risks to people's safety and wellbeing were recorded or being monitored.” from the report
Staff training and supervision
needs fixingSeveral staff had overdue training, and some had not received regular formal supervision. Inspectors made a recommendation for a stronger induction, training and supervision system.
“The staff training plan demonstrated there remained gaps in some staff member's training.” from the report
Care records
needs fixingCare plans were not always reviewed, updated or accurate. Thirteen end of life care plans were still outstanding at the inspection.
“13 care plans remained outstanding.” from the report
- 01How are you now checking that every medicine is given as prescribed and recorded correctly?
- 02What checks make sure people's fluid targets, stoma-related risks and other risks are recorded and acted on?
- 03How do you ensure staff use gloves and sanitise their hands correctly between interactions?
- 04What is the current plan for overdue staff training, induction and formal supervision?
- 05How many care plans, including end of life plans, are now complete, reviewed and accurate?
This was a focused inspection based on the previous Inadequate rating, covering Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led, while Caring was not assessed and some ratings carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 March 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 Oaklands (Essex)
8 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- August 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2021Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2020Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2016Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 October 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.