Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a residential care home

What the CQC found at Oakleigh

Goodpublished 12 April 2018, 8 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
Inspectors were assured that the home was using PPE safely, managing outbreaks, arranging testing and admissions safely, and following infection prevention measures. The provider also said it had measures to reduce the risks from COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
Effective?
Good
This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
Caring?
Good
This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
Responsive?
Good
This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
Well-led?
Good
This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2022

Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and clean premises during a targeted COVID-19 review.

Inspectors visited on 17 January 2022. This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices, with questions about staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.

They found the premises clean and well maintained. Staff were using personal protective equipment correctly, had recent infection control training, and were following infection control practices. The home had cleaning schedules, testing arrangements and supplies for safely disposing of protective equipment.

The home was restricting visits in line with the guidance at the time, while helping people keep in touch with families in a COVID-safe way. Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection risks, admissions, testing, visiting and outbreaks safely.

The service was inspected but not rated. This was not a full inspection of all five areas of care, so the report does not give an overall quality rating.

What inspectors praised
  • Clean premises

    The premises were clean and well maintained. Extra cleaning schedules had been introduced, including regular cleaning of high-touch areas.

    “The premises were clean and well maintained. Additional cleaning schedules had been introduced since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic.” from the report
  • Good infection control

    Staff had recent infection control training and inspectors saw them following the correct procedures.

    “All staff had received recent training in infection prevention and control (IPC) and were seen to be following correct IPC practices at all times.” from the report
  • Safe outbreak arrangements

    The home kept protective equipment and clinical waste bins outside rooms where people had COVID-19. Clothes and bed linen were washed separately to reduce cross-contamination.

    “When a service user tested positive for COVID-19, staff placed a well-stocked supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) outside their room and a clinical waste bin” from the report
  • Family contact

    Visits were restricted in line with the guidance at the time, but staff supported people to stay in contact with their families in a COVID-safe way.

    “People were supported by staff to remain in contact with their families in a COVID-safe way.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.

Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What measures are currently in place to manage staffing pressures caused by COVID-19?
  2. 02How do you handle personal protective equipment, clinical waste, clothes and bed linen when someone has an infection?
  3. 03How are visits currently arranged, and how would you support family contact during an outbreak?
  4. 04How often are high-touch areas cleaned, and how often is infection prevention and control training updated?
  5. 05What is the home's most recent full CQC rating and report?

This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it did not assess the other four key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 February 2022 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, September 2020

Oakleigh was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and found some thoughtful ways to support people during COVID-19 restrictions.

Inspectors visited the home on 25 August 2020. This was an announced, targeted inspection about infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.

They were assured that the home was using personal protective equipment safely, following social distancing and shielding rules, testing people and staff, and managing visitors and admissions safely.

Inspectors also found staff champions supporting activities and technology, including video calls with family and chair-based exercises. A wishing tree helped people record things they hoped to do after COVID-19 restrictions were lifted.

The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give an overall quality rating or full ratings for the five areas of care. It only reports what inspectors checked during this focused visit.

What inspectors praised
  • Infection control

    Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements to reduce the risk of infection and manage outbreaks.

    “We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
  • Support for activities and contact

    Staff used their skills and interests to help people stay in touch with family and take part in activities.

    “Staff had nominated champions for different areas, such as technology and activities, by identifying staff members with particular skills and interests to assist and support people.” from the report
  • People's wishes

    The home created a wishing tree so people could record activities they hoped to enjoy when restrictions ended.

    “Staff had made a 'wishing tree' for people to make a wish, such as to go to the theatre, for when COVID-19 restrictions have been lifted.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about

Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.

Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How have your infection prevention and control arrangements changed since the inspection on 25 August 2020?
  2. 02What are the current arrangements for family visits and video calls?
  3. 03How do you test people using the service and staff when there is a concern about infection?
  4. 04How do you safely admit new people to the home now?
  5. 05What activities and support are available for people who want to keep in touch with family?

This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 September 2020 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 story over the years

Every inspection of Oakleigh

4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.

  1. February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent rating
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read what inspectors found at Oakleigh →

  2. September 2020Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read what inspectors found at Oakleigh →

  3. April 2018Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. February 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. January 2016Requires improvementup from Inadequate
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. May 2015Inadequate
    Safe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. January 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. June 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. April 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  10. November 2010

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey

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. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.

“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
Emma P., about Aman A.
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
Clare M., about Zion S.
See live-in carers near SurreyProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.