CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oakleigh Residential Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control measures, with two small infection risks identified.
This was a targeted inspection on 12 February 2021. It looked specifically at how the home was prepared to prevent and control COVID-19 infections. The inspection was announced in advance.
Inspectors were assured about most areas, including testing, personal protective equipment, safe admissions, visiting arrangements and outbreak planning. The home was clean, and staff were seen washing their hands and using protective equipment correctly.
Inspectors were only somewhat assured about the layout and hygiene of the premises. A risk assessment had not been documented for staff who also worked elsewhere, and a non-pedal bin in the staff toilet could increase the risk of cross-contamination. The record was completed shortly after the inspection, and the bin was due to be replaced.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not give a Good, Requires improvement or Inadequate rating for the service or the inspected area.
Infection control measures
The home used temperature checks, COVID-19 testing, health questionnaires and personal protective equipment. There were also plans for managing a possible outbreak.
“The service managed infection prevention and control (IPC) through a range of measures.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was cleaned regularly, including frequently touched areas, and deep cleaning took place weekly. Its layout supported social distancing while still allowing people to socialise.
“The service looked clean and furniture had been positioned to help promote social distancing” from the report
Keeping people connected
When visits were limited, the home helped people communicate with relatives through video calls, letters and telephone calls. Staff also supported activities and personal interests.
“Other systems had been introduced that enabled people to communicate with relatives such as video technology, letters and regular telephone calls.” from the report
Clinical support
A GP provided clinical support and had trained staff to identify people who might be at risk of infection at an early stage.
“The GP had trained staff to use equipment to identify at an early stage any person at risk of infections.” from the report
Incomplete risk assessment record
needs fixingThe home had assessed the risk from staff working elsewhere, but had not documented that assessment at the time of inspection. The record was completed shortly afterwards.
“Where staff also worked elsewhere the provider had risk assessed, but had not documented, this.” from the report
Staff toilet bin
needs fixingA non-pedal bin in the staff toilet created a risk of cross-contamination. The registered manager said it would be replaced straight away.
“there was a non-pedal type bin in the staff toilet which created a risk of cross contamination to staff and people.” from the report
- 01Has the risk assessment for staff who work elsewhere been documented and reviewed?
- 02Has the non-pedal bin in the staff toilet been replaced?
- 03How often are frequently touched areas and shared areas cleaned?
- 04What arrangements are currently in place for visiting relatives and keeping people in contact with family?
- 05What is the home's plan if there is a COVID-19 outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures during the coronavirus pandemic; it was not a full inspection of all aspects of care and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 February 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.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind care, but legal safeguards and personalised support needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 6 August 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, visitors, staff and a health professional. They observed care and checked care, medicine and management records.
People generally felt safe and were happy with the staff. Medicines were managed safely, staff were kind, privacy was respected, and people were supported with food, drinks and healthcare.
There were important shortfalls. Some people were prevented from leaving without the required legal authorisations. Care plans lacked enough personal detail, and people were sometimes left alone for long periods with little to do. The overall rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement.
Safe medicines
Staff were trained to give medicines safely. Records were accurate, medicines were stored securely and instructions were available for medicines needing special directions.
“Medicine records were completed accurately and with enough detail.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind and caring. Staff involved people in decisions and protected their privacy and dignity during personal care.
“Staff were kind and caring, they involved people in their care and made sure people's privacy was respected.” from the report
Food and drink choices
People could choose what to eat, where to sit and how quickly to eat. Staff supported people who needed help with eating and drinking.
“If I don't like the food, they'll find me something else to eat.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and tidy. Staff used protective equipment and housekeeping followed a regular cleaning schedule.
“The home was clean, tidy and smelled pleasant when we visited.” from the report
Unlawful restrictions
seriousSome people were prevented from leaving for their own safety, but the required legal applications had not been completed. The report says this breached Regulation 11.
“The lack of applications for Deprivation of Liberty authorisations meant that people were restrained without the authorisation to legally do so.” from the report
People left without enough to do
needs fixingStaff missed opportunities to spend time with people. Some people were left alone for long periods with little to do, and an advertised activity did not take place.
“This left people alone for long periods of time with nothing to do and meant that many people fell asleep during the morning.” from the report
Care plans lacked detail
needs fixingCare plans were reviewed monthly but were not personalised or detailed enough to guide staff safely and effectively. People were not aware of their care plans or involved in reviews.
“They did not give staff enough guidance on how to meet people's needs effectively and safely.” from the report
Limited dementia-friendly design
minorSome adaptations were in place, but there were no handrails along corridors and little specifically designed to support people living with dementia.
“However, there were no handrail along corridors and there was little specifically for people with dementia, such as fiddle boards or pictures.” from the report
- 01Have all required Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications now been completed, and how do you check that restrictions are lawful?
- 02How are care plans now personalised, and how are residents and relatives involved in reviewing them?
- 03What activities are available for people living with dementia, and how do you make sure planned activities take place?
- 04How do you prevent people being left alone for long periods when staff are writing notes or taking breaks?
- 05What changes have been made to the environment for people living with dementia, including corridor handrails and visual prompts?
This was an unannounced planned inspection that looked at all five CQC questions, including the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 September 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 Oakleigh Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Oakleigh Residential Care Home →
- September 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Oakleigh Residential Care Home →
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 May 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 Cambridgeshire
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 £1,200 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
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.