CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oaklands Rest Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and managed, medicines were stored and given safely, and infection control arrangements were in place. They also found enough staff and safer recruitment checks.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs, preferences and changing risks were assessed and recorded. Staff had training and supervision, and people were supported with food, drink, healthcare and lawful consent decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. Care plans reflected people's likes, dislikes, routines, communication needs and personal backgrounds.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The home provided personalised care, regular care plan reviews and activities seven days a week. Complaints and concerns were recorded, investigated and responded to.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found supportive leadership, regular audits and meetings, and an open culture involving staff, relatives and other professionals. The provider was continuing to invest in the home and care technology.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care and major improvements since the last inspection.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 23 February 2023. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with staff and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records. They also observed people in shared areas and received feedback from relatives and professionals.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from harm, medicines were managed safely and there were enough experienced staff. Staff understood people's needs and supported their health, nutrition, communication and daily activities.
The inspection found a friendly atmosphere and kind, respectful care. People and families were involved in care decisions. The home had improved its activities, environment, care planning and quality checks.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published in November 2019, with breaches of regulations. Inspectors found enough improvement had been made and that the home was no longer in breach.
Kind and personal care
Staff knew people well and adapted care to their preferences, routines and communication needs. Inspectors observed respectful relationships and support for independence.
“Staff knew the people they supported well and had developed positive caring relationships with them.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, safe recruitment checks and secure medicines systems.
“People received their medicines in a safe and effective way from staff who had received appropriate training.” from the report
Activities and inclusion
Activities were available seven days a week and were adapted to people's abilities and interests. The home also supported people's religious, cultural and communication needs.
“There was now a system and staff support for providing activities 7 days a week.” from the report
Improvements since 2019
The home had improved its care planning, infection control, risk management, environment and quality checks. Previous regulatory breaches had been resolved.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What are the current visiting arrangements, and do visits still need to be booked?
- 02How will you support my relative if they are living with dementia, including activities and the dementia-friendly environment?
- 03How many staff are normally on duty for the number and needs of residents?
- 04Which improvements to the building and specialist equipment are still being completed?
- 05How will my family be involved in care plan reviews and decisions about support?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection after the 2019 Requires Improvement rating, with infection prevention and control also checked under Safe; all five key questions were rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 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, November 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and safe medicines, but serious problems with hygiene, risks, activities and management.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 4, 9 and 12 July 2019. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff recruitment files and management records.
The home was caring, and staff usually treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. Medicines were managed safely, staffing levels met people's general health needs, and staff received a range of training.
However, bathrooms and other areas were not always clean. Staff did not always follow risk assessments or care plans. Recruitment checks were not always complete. Activities and social stimulation did not consistently meet people's needs, and management checks had failed to find or fix some problems.
The overall rating is Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led were also Requires Improvement, while Caring was Good. The home had four regulatory breaches and had remained Requires Improvement for two consecutive inspections.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm, patient interactions. Staff used people's preferred names and supported dignity, choice and independence.
“We observed some very kind and caring interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Medicines management
Medicines were stored, administered and checked safely. Staff were trained and their competence was reviewed.
“The management, storage and administration of medicines was safe.” from the report
Food and drink support
People's weight and fluid intake were monitored. Extra support, supplements and referrals were used when people were at risk of losing weight.
“People's weights were monitored and where people were losing, or at risk of losing weight additional measures were put in place” from the report
Healthcare links
Some healthcare professionals said the home referred people appropriately and recognised when people were becoming unwell.
“They do seem to know their patients well and recognise deterioration and do their best to get GP visits when needed.” from the report
Activities improving
Activities had increased after a dedicated activities member of staff was employed. Inspectors saw baking, a quiz and plans for people to go into the garden.
“We found provision of activities for mental and social stimulation was improving” from the report
Poor cleanliness and infection control
seriousBathrooms, toilets, surfaces and some shared areas were not hygienically clean. Some hand sanitiser dispensers were empty or did not work.
“Systems and processes to manage the prevention and control of infections were not robust.” from the report
Risks not always managed
seriousA person at risk of choking was given the wrong type of cup. Stair gates were left open, and people had to hold hot drinks because there were no tables in the main lounge.
“Risk to people had not always been mitigated in accordance with their care plan and risk assessment.” from the report
Recruitment checks
seriousOne staff member worked before full DBS clearance was issued and sometimes worked alone with people. The report says this was a continuing breach.
“Robust processes were not always followed when checking staff for suitability before being employed by the service.” from the report
Activities and supervision
needs fixingPeople were sometimes left with little social or mental stimulation. Staff were not always present in communal areas to notice what was happening.
“There was little to no social interaction between the six people in the room” from the report
Care plans not always followed
needs fixingStaff knew people's needs in general, but inspectors saw occasions when care plans were not followed and physical observations were incomplete.
“Staff demonstrated knowledge of people's individual needs and preferences regarding support. Occasionally staff did not follow care plans.” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment
needs fixingParts of the building lacked handrails, clear colour cues and suitable lighting. Access to the garden was limited for people needing staff support.
“The environment was not as dementia friendly as it could have been.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make bathrooms, toilets, surfaces and hand-sanitiser points consistently clean and usable?
- 02How do you now make sure staff follow each person's risk assessment, including instructions about drinks and choking risks?
- 03How do you check that all staff have completed the required recruitment checks before working alone with people?
- 04What regular activities are now available for people who want social and mental stimulation, including those living with dementia?
- 05How do your audits now identify problems with care plans, infection control and risks, and how do you check that fixes have lasted?
This was an unannounced inspection that looked at the care, accommodation, records, staffing and management across all five key questions; the previous ratings were also considered. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 November 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.
Every inspection of Oaklands Rest Home
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 November 2010.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.