CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oaklands Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, medicines were managed safely, infection controls were effective and there were enough staff. Recruitment checks had improved and the home was no longer in breach.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward, but that rating is not stated in the report text provided.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. Staff supported people to make choices, communicate their views and maintain their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward, but that rating is not stated in the report text provided.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers had regular checks covering care plans, risks, medicines, infection control, incidents and safety. Inspectors found the home was open, person-centred and working well with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, after earlier breaches were resolved.
The inspection took place on 16 and 23 February 2023. It was unannounced on the first day and announced on the second. One inspector spoke with people and staff, reviewed care and recruitment records, observed care, and sought views from relatives and professionals.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Caring and Well-led were rated Good. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, infection controls were in place, and there were enough suitably checked staff.
People were described as receiving kind and respectful care. Staff supported choices, independence and contact with important people. Managers used audits, feedback and incident reviews to improve the service.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, with breaches relating to safe care and treatment, staff recruitment checks and good governance. Inspectors found enough improvement had been made and the home was no longer in breach. Effective and Responsive were not inspected in this visit, so their previous ratings were carried forward.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found effective recruitment checks and enough staff to meet people's needs. The home aimed to use a consistent staff team who knew people well.
“There were effective recruitment and selection processes in place. Staff had completed application forms and interviews had been undertaken.” from the report
Kind care
People and relatives described staff as patient, kind and attentive. Inspectors saw staff responding calmly to people's emotions and support needs.
“People received kind and compassionate care from staff who used positive, respectful language which people understood and responded well to.” from the report
Management checks
The home used regular audits and followed up actions. Care plans and risk assessments were updated after incidents or changes in people's needs.
“Systems were in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service. Audits were completed on a regular basis as part of monitoring the service provided.” from the report
Caring rating fell
minorCaring was rated Good, compared with Outstanding at the August 2018 inspection. The report does not explain the reason for this change.
“At our inspection in August 2018, we rated this key question outstanding. At this inspection the rating has changed to good.” from the report
- 01What are the current staffing levels on each shift, and how do you cover sickness without relying on unfamiliar staff?
- 02How do you check that medicines prescribed to be given when needed are given safely and recorded correctly?
- 03What changes were made after the previous breaches, and how do your current audits show that these improvements are being maintained?
- 04What is the current rating for Effective and Responsive, and when were these areas last fully inspected?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, with Caring also reported; Effective and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 March 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, June 2021
Oaklands Residential Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found serious infection control and recruitment failures, although care was kind and medicines were managed safely.
The inspection began as a targeted check after a large COVID-19 outbreak. It was widened to a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led. Visits took place on 27 November, 30 November and 15 December 2020.
Inspectors found that the home did not always have suitable protective equipment for particular situations. Some infection control arrangements and guidance were also inadequate. Staff had started work before all suitability checks were complete. The home’s own checks had not identified these risks.
There were also positive findings. People said they were happy and well cared for. Staff were kind and compassionate, people were offered food and drinks, and medicines were safely managed.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection, published on 27 September 2018. The other areas were not assessed during this inspection and previous ratings were used.
Kind care
Inspectors observed staff supporting people in a kind and compassionate way. People told inspectors they were happy and well cared for.
“We observed people being cared for and supported by kind and compassionate staff.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were stored, recorded and given safely. Staff received training and their competence was checked.
“Medicines were being safely stored, recorded and administered in a safe way.” from the report
Food and drinks
People were offered choices of drinks and snacks during the day.
“People were being offered a choice of drinks and snacks throughout the day.” from the report
Family contact
The home worked to help people stay in touch with relatives, friends and loved ones during the pandemic.
“The service had worked hard through the pandemic to ensure people were kept in contact with their family, friends and loved ones in a variety of ways.” from the report
Protective equipment and infection control
seriousThe PPE available was not suitable for a situation involving equipment that could expose people to body fluids. Waste disposal, laundry storage, written guidance and isolation arrangements also needed improvement.
“People and staff had been placed at risk because the Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) used was not suitable for aerosol generated equipment” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousSome new staff started work before checks had confirmed whether they were suitable to work with vulnerable people. Inspectors said this placed people at potential risk.
“Recruitment files showed new staff had been employed to work within the service prior to having their suitability checked” from the report
Management checks
seriousThe home’s quality assurance systems did not identify the infection control and recruitment risks found by inspectors. This was a breach of the good governance regulation.
“The registered manager and provider had failed to identify the risks we have highlighted during this inspection.” from the report
Staff training records
needs fixingThere were gaps in recorded fire, safeguarding and dementia care training. The manager said these gaps were being addressed.
“The training matrix showed a number of gaps in staff training.” from the report
PRN medicine guidance
minorMedicines were managed safely, but staff did not have written guidance explaining when as-needed medicines should be given. Inspectors made a good practice recommendation.
“The system did not have PRN (as needed) protocols for staff to refer to for when they might consider administering PRN.” from the report
- 01Can you show that all required recruitment and suitability checks are completed before new staff start work?
- 02What PPE is now available for situations involving aerosol-generating equipment or exposure to body fluids?
- 03How do you check that staff put on and remove PPE in the correct order?
- 04How have you improved your quality checks so that infection control and recruitment risks are identified promptly?
- 05Have written PRN medicine protocols now been completed for people who may need as-needed medicines?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led after a targeted COVID-19 infection control check; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not assessed and previous ratings for areas not inspected were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 June 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 Residential Care Home
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Oaklands Residential Care Home →
- June 2021Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Oaklands Residential Care Home →
- September 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodCaring: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- November 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 February 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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Devon
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 £1,270 a week. 15 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
“She is such a warm and gentle person while being professional and competent at the same time.”
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
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.