CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oaklands Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, and risks, accidents and incidents were monitored. Staffing was considered safe, but staff said they could be very busy, and some prescribed creams needed labelling before this was corrected.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had suitable training and supervision, and people received support with healthcare, nutrition and specialist needs. Mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were in place.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were described as kind, patient and respectful. People were offered choices, supported to remain independent and treated with dignity.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans gave clear guidance and care was adapted to people's needs and preferences. Activities were provided, but there was no activity coordinator at the time of inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a friendly, caring culture and staff understood their roles. Meetings, quality checks and reviews of accidents and incidents were used to involve people and improve care.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but staff felt very busy and there was no activity coordinator.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3 July 2019. Inspectors spoke with four people living at the home, two relatives and six staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from harm, received suitable care and medicines, and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
There were some areas to watch. Staff said they could be very busy and did not always have time to chat. Some prescribed creams were not labelled, but this was corrected on the day. There was also no activity coordinator at the time of the inspection.
The previous inspection also rated the home Good. This inspection says the home remained Good.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw positive relationships between staff and people. Staff knew people's personalities, preferences and diverse needs.
“People were cared for and supported by staff that were kind, patient and respectful.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans contained clear guidance about people's health, medicines, personal needs and preferences. Staff adapted support as people's needs changed.
“Care plans gave staff clear guidance to provide people with person centred support.” from the report
Safe medicines and risk management
Medicines were stored securely and records showed people received them as prescribed. Risks and incidents were recorded, reviewed and used to share lessons with staff.
“Records showed people received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were stored safely and securely.” from the report
Good involvement and communication
People and relatives were able to raise concerns, and staff supported people to make choices and communicate in ways they could understand.
“People and their relatives told us they were confident in raising concerns with the staff if they had any issues.” from the report
Staff felt very busy
needs fixingAlthough inspectors found staffing levels were safe, staff said they were sometimes too busy to spend time chatting with people. The manager was looking at extra support during busy periods.
“Staff told us they could be very busy and did not always have time to chat to people.” from the report
Creams needed labelling
needs fixingNot all prescribed creams were labelled when inspectors checked. The issue was discussed with the deputy manager and corrected the same day.
“However, we spoke to the deputy manager around the importance of having all prescribed creams labelled.” from the report
No activity coordinator
minorThere was no activity coordinator at the inspection. The manager had arranged some external support and care staff also helped provide activities.
“At the time of inspection there was no activity coordinator in the service.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure people have enough staff time and attention during busy periods?
- 02Who is currently responsible for organising activities while there is no activity coordinator?
- 03How do you check that every prescribed cream is labelled and recorded correctly?
- 04How are changes in a person's health or care needs identified and passed on to all staff?
- 05How are people's views and relatives' concerns used to improve the home?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC areas, and the previous Good ratings remained unchanged. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 July 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, January 2017
Oaklands Residential Home rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with one missed medicine and noisy activities noted.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 12 December 2016. They spoke with four people, one relative and three staff. They also reviewed four care plans, four medicine records and documents about care and management.
The report found all five areas were Good. People said they felt safe, enjoyed the food and were well supported. Staff were described as kind, respectful and knowledgeable about people's needs, interests and choices.
Staffing, recruitment, training, care planning and quality checks were found to be effective. The report also noted that one person missed medicine for two days because of a pharmacy error, and that some activities were too noisy and crowded for some people.
The previous inspection on 27 July 2016 found the home was meeting the regulations. This inspection also found the home was meeting the regulations and rated it Good overall.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff taking time to talk with people rather than only completing tasks. People looked well cared for and their privacy and dignity were respected.
“Without exception all the interactions we saw between people and staff were undertaken in a kindly, caring but not over familiar manner.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences and important relationships. Staff knew people's interests and supported their choices about daily routines and care.
“Care plans we reviewed were seen to have been developed using a person- centred approach.” from the report
Staff skills and support
Staff had completed training in areas including moving and handling, dementia awareness, medicines and safeguarding. Records showed regular supervision and annual appraisals.
“The staff received appropriate training, supervision and appraisals.” from the report
Management checks
The home monitored safety, incidents, care plans, risk assessments and staff training. Meetings and surveys gave people and relatives opportunities to comment on the service.
“There were effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Medicine delay
needs fixingOne person did not receive medicine for two days because of a pharmacy error. The report says the home recorded what had happened and had confirmation from a doctor that this would not affect the person.
“However, one person had not received their medication for two days due to pharmacy error.” from the report
Activities could be too noisy
minorActivities were held in a small lounge, which became noisy and crowded. Inspectors said this affected some people who found it too much and left the room.
“We did note that as the activities were carried out in the lounge, which wasn't very large, it was noisy and crowded” from the report
Busy periods for senior staff
minorOne staff member said the home could become very busy when a senior member of staff was taken away from usual duties to complete paperwork. The manager said this would be reviewed.
“We have enough staff but if the senior is taken off duties we can end up being really busy.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to prevent medicines being delayed by pharmacy errors?
- 02How do you check that medicines are supplied and given on time?
- 03How do you adapt activities for people who find noise or crowds difficult?
- 04How do you maintain staffing levels when senior staff need time for paperwork?
- 05What positive changes have been made since the previous inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and all five CQC questions, based on discussions, observations and a sample of four care plans and four medicine records. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 January 2017 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 Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- June 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 June 2015.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leeds
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 £1,250 a week. 89 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Took his time to learn about me read my care plan and to listen to me. great companionship with lots of laughing.”
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.