CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Oaklands Nursing and Residential Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some medicines were unavailable or not managed in line with instructions. Risk assessments were missing or not detailed enough, and environmental risks were found during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's food, nutrition and health needs were supported well, and the home worked with other services. Staff training compliance was uneven and inspectors recommended improvement.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with dignity and respect and were offered choices. Relatives and people said they felt supported.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, activities and visits were available, and complaints systems were in place. Inspectors recommended better records of people's and relatives' involvement in care planning.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Audits did not always identify medicine, environmental and confidentiality risks. A new manager was introducing better systems, but these were still at an early stage.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and effective care, but medicines, risk management and leadership systems were not always safe or reliable.
The CQC made unannounced visits on 5 and 10 October 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting professional. They checked care and medicines records, staff files, the building, medicine administration and communal areas.
People generally felt safe and were treated with kindness and respect. Meals, support with health needs, activities, visitors and end of life care were handled well. However, some medicines were not available or recorded correctly. Risk assessments were missing or lacked enough detail, and some environmental risks were found.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Effective, Caring and Responsive were rated Good. Safe and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. The home had a new manager, who had started introducing improvements, but the new systems had not been in place long enough to show whether they worked.
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff as kind, thoughtful and respectful. Inspectors observed staff knocking before entering rooms and offering choices about care.
“I feel that the staff are kind and thoughtful. They're very helpful and good at their jobs. They treat me with dignity.” from the report
Meals and nutrition
People enjoyed the meals and were offered dietary choices. The home monitored people's weights and recorded actions when concerns were found.
“I enjoy mealtimes because I like to have conversations with other residents. The staff prepare meals from scratch here” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that infection prevention measures, protective equipment and outbreak arrangements were in place.
“We were assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
End of life support
End of life wishes were recorded, links with specialist professionals were established, and staff had received related training.
“The staff follow directions well and seek advice re: symptom management. Staff recognise if a person is entering end of life.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousSome medicines were not in stock. Allergy information, thickening powder records, creams and patches were not always managed correctly.
“Medicines were not always managed safely. Medicines were not always available to be given.” from the report
Risk assessments were incomplete
seriousFive of seven care files checked either lacked a relevant risk assessment or did not contain enough information. Cleaning products were also accessible and some wardrobes were not secured.
“Individual risk assessments were either not consistently in place or did not contain enough detail to ensure risks were being assessed and managed safely.” from the report
Leadership checks were not reliable
seriousAudits had not identified some medicine, cream storage and environmental risks. Confidential daily records were also kept in unsecured communal areas.
“Systems were not robust enough or established to ensure the oversight, safety and good governance of the service.” from the report
Training was uneven
needs fixingCompletion levels varied between training subjects. Inspectors recommended that the home improve its training compliance.
“Compliance levels varied across the different courses, with some areas demonstrating high compliance levels over 80% and other areas had approximately 60%.” from the report
Care plan involvement was not always recorded
minorSome people and relatives said they had not seen the care plans or had not been asked for further information. Inspectors recommended better records of their involvement.
“However, people and relatives told us they had not seen the care plans.” from the report
- 01What has changed in medicine ordering, allergy records, thickening powder records, cream storage and patch application since the inspection?
- 02How are individual risk assessments now checked to make sure they are complete and up to date?
- 03How do you audit environmental safety, confidential records and medicine management, and who reviews the results?
- 04What proportion of staff have now completed the training areas that were only about 60% compliant?
- 05How are people and relatives now involved in writing and reviewing care plans?
This was an unannounced inspection of the newly registered service covering all five CQC questions, including care, the premises and infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 November 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, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements for the designated COVID-19 unit.
Inspectors visited on 25 and 27 November 2020. The visit was announced and focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
They found a separate unit for people discharged from hospital with a positive COVID-19 status. Staff worked only in that unit, and staffing levels were planned around how many people were staying there.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using personal protective equipment safely, managing testing, cleaning, visiting, admissions and possible outbreaks. PPE supplies were above the government guidance levels at that time.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or ratings for most areas of care.
Separate COVID-19 unit
The home had a separate unit for people discharged from hospital with a positive COVID-19 status. It had separate access from the main entrance.
“There was a separate unit identified as a designated care setting in response to the Winter Plan for people discharged from hospital with a positive Covid-19 status.” from the report
Infection control training
Policies, procedures and risk assessments were in place. Staff and agency staff had received infection control and PPE training.
“Staff had received updated training on IPC and the use of personal protective equipment, (PPE).” from the report
PPE supplies
PPE stations were available throughout the unit, and supplies were above the guidance levels in place at the time.
“Stocks of PPE exceeded current government guidance levels.” from the report
Dedicated staffing
Nursing, care and housekeeping staff were arranged to work exclusively in the designated unit. Staffing numbers were planned to change with occupancy.
“Staffing of the unit had been arranged to ensure they worked there exclusively.” from the report
Safe discharge planning
The provider had a procedure intended to support people returning home safely and without unnecessary delay.
“The provider had developed a discharge procedure to help ensure people could return to their homes in a safe and timely way.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and control arrangements are in place now, and how have they changed since the November 2020 inspection?
- 02Is there still a separate unit for people discharged from hospital with a positive COVID-19 status?
- 03How are staff allocated so that staff working with people who may have an infection do not also work elsewhere in the home?
- 04How do you manage PPE supplies, testing and possible infection outbreaks now?
- 05What are the home's current overall CQC rating and the latest ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 December 2020 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 Nursing and Residential Home
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- November 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Oaklands Nursing and Residential Home →
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Oaklands Nursing and Residential Home →
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 July 2019.
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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.