CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oaklands House Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found risk assessments for issues including falls, choking, pressure ulcers, moving and handling, and nutrition. Medicines were stored, administered and checked safely, and people said staff responded promptly to call bells.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before admission and staff received training relevant to their roles. People had choices about food and drink and were supported to access health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness and respect. Inspectors saw positive relationships, support for independence, and staff asking for consent before providing care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's individual needs, communication needs, preferences and interests. Activities were planned with people, and the report says this area had improved since the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers used audits, meetings and an improvement plan to monitor the service. Inspectors found managers knew people's needs and that staff were engaged in improving the home.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements in responsive care since the previous inspection.
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection on 08 May 2019. One inspector spoke with people, a relative, staff and managers. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, accident records, audits, training and recruitment files, and observed care.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found systems to protect people from abuse, manage risks and medicines, check staffing and control infection. People said they felt safe and that staff responded promptly.
People were supported with food, drink and access to health professionals. Staff respected people's choices, privacy, dignity and independence. Activities were planned around people's interests, and complaints were recorded and addressed.
The report says responsive care had improved since the previous inspection, when this area was rated Requires Improvement. The overall Good rating means inspectors found consistently good care, although it does not mean every possible issue was examined or that care will always be problem-free.
Safe care and medicines
The home had safeguarding arrangements, risk assessments and checks on equipment and fire safety. Inspectors found medicines were administered, stored and audited safely.
“Regular and robust audits and checks on medicines supported the registered manager and provider to identify and address any shortfalls promptly.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as caring. Inspectors saw respectful communication, positive relationships and support for privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised activities
Activities were based on people's interests and choices. The home offered group and one-to-one activities, outings and support for individual hobbies.
“There was a creative programme of activities which reduced the risks of people being lonely and isolated.” from the report
Good food and health support
People could choose what and how much to eat. Staff knew about dietary needs, and records showed people received support from health professionals.
“Without exception, people told us that they had choices of what they wanted to eat and the quality and quantity of food was good.” from the report
Improving management
The report describes improvements since the new manager took up the role, including better care plans and higher staff training compliance.
“In August 2018 training compliance was 63% and at the time of our inspection, this had risen to 95.5%.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01The home does not provide nursing care. What nursing or clinical needs can you support, and when would another service be needed?
- 02Some Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards referrals had not yet been authorised at the inspection. What is the current position of any referral relevant to my relative?
- 03How will you assess and adjust staffing if my relative's needs or dependency change?
- 04How will my family be involved in checking and updating my relative's care plan?
- 05Which activities would be suitable for my relative's interests, communication needs and mobility?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, based on observations, discussions, records and checks of the home's systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 June 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, December 2016
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but care plans were not always accurate or detailed enough.
Inspectors visited without notice on 1 November 2016. They spoke with people living in the home, staff, the cook, managers and the provider's area manager. They also observed care and checked records, care plans, risk assessments, staff files, training and audits.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective and caring services, and for how it was led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, good safeguarding arrangements, suitable staff training and positive relationships between staff and residents. People were involved in everyday choices and were supported to eat well, see healthcare professionals, join activities and maintain relationships.
Responsive care was rated Requires Improvement. Some care plans had errors or contradictions, and they did not contain enough information about people's history, preferences, interests and aspirations. One person did not receive prescribed eye drops at the expected time, but this was addressed immediately during the inspection.
The overall Good rating means the home met the relevant standards in most areas, but the lower Responsive rating shows that personalised care records needed improvement. Staffing had improved since the July 2015 inspection, when the service had not had enough staff.
Enough staff
Staffing had improved since the previous inspection. Inspectors saw that people were supported without being rushed and did not have to wait long for call bells.
“This inspection found that there were sufficient staff deployed in the service to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and responded to their comfort and choices. Inspectors saw staff protecting people's privacy and involving them in everyday decisions.
“People had developed positive caring relationships with staff.” from the report
Good management checks
The home had regular audits and a development plan with named responsibilities and timescales. Managers used these systems to monitor and improve the service.
“There was a robust system of monitoring checks and audits to identify any improvements that needed to be made.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to take part in activities, remain independent and keep in touch with family and friends.
“People were encouraged and supported to develop and maintain relationships with people that mattered to them and avoid social isolation.” from the report
Inaccurate care plans
needs fixingSome care plans contained contradictory information. This could mean staff did not always have clear instructions about important care, such as checking blood sugar levels.
“Some care plans we looked at contained errors or contradictions.” from the report
Not enough personal detail
needs fixingCare plans did not include enough information about people's personal history, preferences, interests and aspirations. The home was developing additional profiles, but the documents seen did not yet provide this detail.
“People's care plans did not contain any information about people's personal history, individual preferences, interests and aspirations.” from the report
One missed medicine timing
needs fixingInspectors saw that one person had not received prescribed eye drops before lunch as expected. The manager addressed this immediately and confirmed the person's routine had changed.
“However, whilst observing medicines being administered we saw that one person had not received their eye drops as prescribed.” from the report
Manager registration in progress
minorThe manager had not registered with the CQC at the time of the inspection but had applied and was going through the registration process.
“On the day of our inspection the manager had not registered with the Care Quality Commission but we are aware that they have applied to register and are going through the registration process.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that care plans contain accurate, consistent instructions, especially for conditions such as diabetes?
- 02How do you record each person's life history, preferences, interests and aspirations, and how is this information used by staff?
- 03What was changed after the missed eye drops, and how do you check that medicines are given at the prescribed times?
- 04Has the manager's CQC registration application been completed since this inspection?
- 05How are staff training and supervision records checked to make sure they are up to date and useful?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service; inspectors reviewed staffing, medicines, care, activities, management and records, with the Responsive rating requiring improvement while the other four question ratings were Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 December 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 House Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Oaklands House Residential Home →
- December 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Oaklands House Residential Home →
- October 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.