CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Oaklands
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, enough staff, safe medicines practice and effective infection control. They also found that some checks on staff backgrounds had not been completed thoroughly enough before employment.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed, staff had relevant training, and people were supported with food, drink and healthcare. Inspectors also found that consent and best-interest processes were being followed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind, respectful and caring. Staff promoted privacy, dignity, independence and involvement in decisions about care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found improved communication, audits and oversight of safety and quality. People, relatives and staff gave positive feedback about the management and culture.
What inspectors found, September 2023
Oaklands: Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, but some pre-employment checks were incomplete.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 26 July 2023. The inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They also checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
People said they were very happy with the care. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable risk assessments and good infection control. Staff supported people's choices, dignity, independence and healthcare needs.
Some checks on new staff were not complete before they started work. The home was given a recommendation to improve its recruitment checks. The overall rating changed from Requires Improvement to Good because improvements had been made since the previous inspection.
Positive care experience
People told inspectors they were very happy with the care. Relatives were also kept informed and involved.
“People told us they were very happy with the care they received.” from the report
Risk management
Risks to people and the environment were identified and plans told staff how to manage them. Accidents and incidents were reviewed for lessons and trends.
“Risks relating to people's needs and their environment had been identified, assessed and appropriate plans were in place informing staff on how to manage those risks.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People said staff treated them with kindness and respect. Staff supported people to remain as independent as they wanted.
“The staff are very helpful and kind. They treat us all with respect.” from the report
Improved management oversight
The home had strengthened its audits, communication and quality checks since the previous inspection. Inspectors found these systems were helping to identify concerns.
“Various audits to monitor the oversight of the safety and quality of the service had been undertaken and these were effective in identifying any concerns.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment checks
needs fixingSome checks with previous health and social care employers had not always been completed before staff started. Inspectors found no evidence that anyone had been harmed, but recommended that the recruitment process be reviewed.
“On occasions, checks into an applicant's background had not been thorough enough.” from the report
- 01What checks are now completed with previous health and social care employers before a person starts work?
- 02How do you make sure staffing levels remain suitable when regular agency staff are used?
- 03What audits are currently carried out, and how are any concerns followed up?
- 04How will my relative be involved in reviewing and changing their care plan?
- 05How do you respond if there is an infection outbreak, and when would visiting be restricted?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led; Responsive was not inspected and the ratings for any uninspected questions were carried over from the last inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 September 2023 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 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks, cleanliness, dignity and management systems needed urgent improvement, although personalised activities and medicines support were positive.
This was the first inspection since the current provider registered the home. Inspectors visited on 8 October and 14 October 2021, spoke with people, relatives and staff, watched care and medicines support, and reviewed care, medicine, staffing and management records.
People were at risk of avoidable harm because some risk assessments, maintenance checks and safety systems were not reliable. The home was not consistently clean, and inspectors saw problems with privacy and dignity. Staffing levels were described as minimal, with regular use of agency workers, although recruitment had recently filled vacant posts.
There were also positive findings. Medicines were managed safely, people had access to health professionals, and some people were supported to attend college, university, activities and community events. The Responsive question was rated Good, but Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led were all rated Requires Improvement.
The provider breached Regulation 12 on safe care and treatment and Regulation 17 on good governance. Some improvements were made during the inspection, including deep cleaning and clearing a fire exit, but CQC required an action plan and planned to monitor progress and return for a further inspection.
Medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were administered safely, records were accurate and medicines were stored at the correct temperatures.
“The provider had systems in place to ensure people's medicines were being managed safely.” from the report
Community life
People were supported to stay independent and take part in education, activities and relationships outside the home.
“People were supported to develop and maintain relationships within the home and within the wider community.” from the report
Health and nutrition
People had choices of meals, specialised diets were catered for, and staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments and screening.
“People were offered a choice of meals and picture menus were available.” from the report
Communication
Information was available in easy-read formats and staff understood people's communication needs.
“We noted information was produced in easy read formats and staff we spoke with were aware of people's communication needs.” from the report
Risk management
seriousSome risk assessments were inaccurate or out of date. Maintenance checks did not reliably identify or resolve faults, and a fire exit was partly blocked.
“The provider did not have systems to ensure risks were always assessed and managed well.” from the report
Cleanliness and infection control
needs fixingThe home needed a thorough deep clean. Inspectors found dirty items and bedding, flies on food and not enough cleaning cover, although improvements were made during the inspection.
“The provider had failed to provide a clean and hygienic environment for those who lived at the home, which did not promote good infection control practices.” from the report
Privacy and dignity
needs fixingInspectors saw a person's privacy compromised during a transfer and found that care and mealtime support did not always protect dignity. Some records and staff comments were not respectful.
“The provider had not ensured people's privacy and dignity was consistently respected.” from the report
Staffing and training
needs fixingStaff reported low staffing levels and heavy reliance on agency workers. Some training was overdue and supervision did not always follow the provider's stated timetable.
“Agency workers were used very regularly to cover staff shortages.” from the report
Management oversight
seriousThe provider's checks did not consistently identify or correct problems promptly. This meant important shortfalls were not always addressed in good time.
“Quality monitoring systems were not always effective, which resulted in shortfalls within the service not being recognised or addressed in a timely manner.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure risk assessments are accurate and updated when people's needs change?
- 02How do you now check that the whole home is clean, that cleaning cover is sufficient and that infection control supplies are stocked?
- 03What has changed in staffing levels and agency use since the inspection?
- 04How are privacy and dignity protected during transfers, mealtimes and personal care?
- 05How do you check that care records, staff training and supervision records are complete and up to date?
This was the first comprehensive inspection under the current provider and covered all five CQC questions, including infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 December 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
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2021Requires improvementdown from OutstandingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017Outstandingup from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: OutstandingResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 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.