CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oakley House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, emergency plans, staffing, recruitment checks and medicines systems. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse.
- Effective?
- Good
- People’s needs were assessed and reviewed. Staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisals, and people were supported with food, healthcare and lawful decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in care planning and were encouraged to make choices and develop independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people’s needs, routines and preferences and were regularly updated. People were supported with activities, communication, concerns and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found supportive management, clear staff roles, regular audits and an open approach to feedback and learning.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Oakley House was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care across all five areas.
The inspection took place on 12 February 2019 without advance notice. One inspector spoke with both people living at the home, observed staff and residents, contacted one relative, and spoke with the manager and a care worker. Records, care files, previous reports and other information were also reviewed.
The home supported up to two people with acquired brain injury, and both places were occupied. Inspectors found that people were safe, received effective support, were treated kindly, had personalised care and activities, and benefited from good management.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspectors found that legal requirements were met and that people’s outcomes were consistently good at the time of the inspection.
Personalised support
Care plans described people’s individual needs, routines and preferences. Plans were reviewed with the people using the service.
“People's care plans were detailed and had information about people's specific needs, their personal preferences, routines and how staff should best support them to live happy, contented lives.” from the report
Promoting independence
Staff helped people make choices and work towards daily goals. People were supported to take part in work, college, activities and community life.
“Staff worked hard to promote people's independence through encouraging and supporting people to make informed choices.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw relaxed, positive relationships between staff and residents. People were treated as individuals.
“We saw that staff had good relationships with people and staff were interacting and talking with people in a relaxed manner.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff had induction, training, supervision and appraisals. New staff worked alongside experienced staff while they settled into their roles.
“New staff were given a full induction to the service and worked alongside experienced members of staff when they first started.” from the report
Good oversight
Managers used audits, reports, meetings and feedback to monitor the service and identify learning.
“The management team had a good oversight of what was happening in the service, and demonstrated an in-depth knowledge of all areas.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and update my relative’s care plan before they moved in?
- 02How would you support my relative to make choices and remain as independent as possible?
- 03How would you support my relative with medicines, health appointments and changes in their health needs?
- 04What activities, work, education or community opportunities could my relative take part in?
- 05How would you involve my relative and our family in care reviews and deal with any concerns or complaints?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; both people living at the home and one relative were consulted. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 February 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 Oakley House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 May 2012.
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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.