CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oaklands Rest Home Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable safeguarding systems and effective infection control. Risks to people's health and wellbeing were assessed and managed.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not assessed during this focused inspection. The previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not assessed during this focused inspection. The previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed during this focused inspection. The previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found consistent management oversight, regular audits and a friendly, person-centred culture. Some care files contained old information alongside current documents, and the manager agreed to improve their storage.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and strong management, but some care records were not well organised.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 5 April 2023 and completed other inspection work up to 25 April 2023. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They also observed care, checked medicines and reviewed care, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and well-led were both rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable safeguarding arrangements and a clean, well-maintained home. People and relatives said they felt safe and were happy with the care.
The inspection was prompted by concerns about the service's financial viability. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from this concern. They did find that some care files included old information alongside current records, and the manager agreed to improve how these were stored.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe and well cared for. Staff were described as supportive, kind and familiar with people's needs.
“Everyone told us they felt safe and were well cared for.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff responded quickly when people asked for help.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Strong management
The manager and senior staff carried out regular checks and audits. The home had a stable staff team and people said communication with relatives was good.
“Regular audits and checks were carried out by the registered manager and senior staff.” from the report
Care files were not well organised
minorSome files included old information alongside current documents. Inspectors said this made it difficult to find information in date order, and the manager agreed to improve the filing system.
“Some care files contained old and out of date information alongside current documentation.” from the report
- 01How have you improved the storage of old care records since this inspection?
- 02How do staff make sure they are following the most up-to-date information in each person's care file?
- 03How will you keep relatives informed if there are concerns or changes in my relative's care?
- 04How do you check that medicines continue to be recorded and stored safely?
- 05What were the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive at the previous inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 May 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, February 2018
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found the home was not always well-led because action on faulty equipment was delayed.
Inspectors visited on 7 and 8 December 2017. The first visit was unannounced. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives, managers and staff. They observed care, looked around the building and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found kind and respectful care, enough staff, detailed care plans, good access to health professionals and activities that had improved since earlier inspections. The building had also been improved, including the medicines room, bathrooms and carpets.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The freezer seal was damaged and the owners did not act immediately after being told about it during an external food safety check. It was replaced two days after this inspection. Inspectors also found that some relatives were not always told promptly about changes in care or health.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people warmly and respectfully. Staff knew people's backgrounds, preferences and needs.
“Throughout our inspection we observed staff being kind, patient and respectful to people who used the service” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care records gave staff detailed guidance about people's physical, mental and social needs. Plans were reviewed when people's needs changed.
“Care plans were detailed and staff kept good daily notes which cross referenced and reflected plans of care.” from the report
Staff continuity and training
There was a consistent staff team, with many staff having worked at the home for five years or more. Training and supervision were regularly provided.
“There was a consistent staff team; most of the staff had worked at Oaklands for five years or more.” from the report
Improved activities
Inspectors found that activity and stimulation had improved since the previous inspection. Activities included music, singing, crafts, bingo and celebrations.
“When we returned in March 2017 we found some improvement, and at this inspection we saw that the improvement had been maintained.” from the report
Improved premises and medicines storage
The home had made several physical improvements. Medicines were moved to a dedicated room where temperature and security could be properly managed.
“A new medicines room ensured that medicines could be stored correctly and safely.” from the report
Delayed action on faulty freezer
seriousThe freezer seal was worn, which meant food might not have been kept at the right temperature. The owners had been told about the problem but did not act immediately. The freezer was replaced two days after the inspection.
“The service did not respond immediately when informed of faulty equipment.” from the report
Relatives not always updated promptly
needs fixingSome relatives were not told quickly about hospital changes, medicine changes, doctors' visits or new treatments.
“However, they did not always inform relatives promptly.” from the report
End-of-life wishes not fully recorded
needs fixingSome care plans did not contain information from people and relatives about how they wanted their final days to be planned.
“However, care plans did not include information provided by people who used the service and their relatives about how they would like to plan for their last days.” from the report
One unclear risk assessment
minorOne risk assessment about anxiety and aggression used wording that could be misunderstood. The manager agreed to change it, and staff could explain how they supported the person.
“We saw that the wording in one risk assessment regarding anxiety and aggression was ambiguous and could be misinterpreted.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure advice from food safety and other external inspections is acted on without delay?
- 02How will you tell relatives promptly about hospital visits, medicine changes, doctors' visits and new treatments?
- 03How do you record each person's wishes for their final days, including information from relatives?
- 04What checks are in place to make sure risk assessments use clear wording that staff cannot misinterpret?
- 05What activities are currently available for people who do and do not want to join group activities?
This was a full inspection of the home, covering all five key questions; it also followed earlier inspections where breaches had been found and improvements were checked. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 February 2018 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. The report was longer than we could read in one go; the later sections may not be reflected.
Every inspection of Oaklands Rest Home Limited
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 January 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Oldham
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. 92 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.