CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oakmeadow Community Support Centre
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staffing levels, recruitment, risk assessments, medicines and infection control were generally satisfactory, although some safety certificates were not available at the home.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Training records were incomplete, fire training evidence was missing for care home staff, and some home care staff lacked appropriate training. Formal supervision and support were not consistent, and food, fluid and weight records were sometimes poor.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw warm and respectful interactions. People were involved in decisions, their privacy and dignity were respected, and staff understood their communication needs.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Care plans reflected people's choices in many areas, but some were incomplete and did not include therapy information. End of life records for people receiving care in the community were not complete, and activities needed better planning.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The registered manager was approachable and staff morale had improved. However, audits and other management systems did not reliably identify shortfalls in records, staff skills, safety documentation and care quality.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Oakmeadow Community Support Centre rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and good safety, but training, records and management oversight were not consistent.
Inspectors visited on four dates between December 2019 and February 2020. They spoke with relatives, staff and health professionals, observed care, and checked care, medicine and management records.
The home was rated Good for safety and caring. People were treated kindly, supported to make choices, and had good access to health professionals. The building was clean and had been redecorated since the previous inspection.
The overall rating remains Requires Improvement, as do the ratings for effective, responsive and well-led care. Staff training, supervision and appraisals were inconsistent. Some care records were incomplete, and management checks did not identify important problems. The home has had this overall rating at the last two inspections.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness and compassion in both the care home and the community service. Inspectors saw staff respecting privacy, dignity and people's choices.
“People were treated with kindness and compassion both in the care home and in their own homes when receiving domiciliary care.” from the report
Good safety arrangements
Inspectors found suitable staffing levels, safe recruitment, appropriate risk assessments and trained staff giving medicines. People and relatives said they felt safe.
“People were support by appropriate numbers of staff. People cared for at home told us that they always received the support as arranged.” from the report
Access to health professionals
People had good access to a multidisciplinary team to support rehabilitation and recovery, with referrals handled promptly.
“They had excellent access to the multidisciplinary team, consisting of nurses, GP occupational therapists and physio therapists based in the same building.” from the report
Improved environment and activities
Since the previous inspection, the home had been redecorated, new flooring had been laid and bathrooms had been upgraded. An activities coordinator had also been appointed and a reading group had started.
“Since the last inspection an activities coordinator has been employed. We saw some evidence that activities had taken place from the notice boards.” from the report
Staff training and supervision
seriousTraining, supervision and appraisals were not consistent. Inspectors found that some staff did not have the training needed for their roles, including some specialist care.
“Staff had not received training, supervision or appraisal as is necessary to support them in their role.” from the report
Incomplete care records
seriousSome care plans did not contain all relevant information, including therapy details and end of life care plans. This could make it harder to confirm that people's needs were fully understood and supported.
“Complete and contemporaneous records were not maintained in respect of each service users plan of care.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits did not reliably find problems in care records, staff competency or building safety documentation. The report says the governance systems did not provide a clear overview of service quality.
“Governance systems in place lacked information to ensure checks complied with relevant legislation and guidance.” from the report
Food and drink records
needs fixingFood and fluid charts were recorded inconsistently, and weight records were not always accurate. Inspectors recommended that staff review how these charts should be used.
“Records relating to monitoring food and fluid intake were inconsistently recorded.” from the report
Activities and environment
minorActivities were still at an early stage and needed to be scheduled at times when people were more able to join in. The home remained sparse and clinical-looking, with little of interest along long corridors.
“We recommend that the activities program be looked at to utilise the best times of the day, evenings and weekends when people may feel more able to engage.” from the report
- 01What training, supervision and appraisals have staff completed since the inspection, and how do you check that staff are competent for specialist and end of life care?
- 02How do you now make sure care plans include therapy information and complete details of each person's needs?
- 03Where are end of life care plans for people receiving care at home kept, and how can community staff access them?
- 04How are food, fluid and weight records checked so that risks are identified and acted on?
- 05What changes have you made to your audits so that problems in records, staffing and building safety are found promptly?
This was a planned inspection of both the care home and the registered domiciliary care agency, covering all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 April 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.
What inspectors found, December 2018
Oakmeadow Community Support Centre was rated Requires Improvement; care was safe, but inspectors found limited social contact, poor involvement in care planning and weak oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection on 5 and 6 November 2018. Inspectors reviewed three care plans, three staff files, medicines and safety records. They spoke with five people, two relatives, ten staff and a visiting health professional.
The home was rated Good for safe care. People felt safe, medicines were managed properly, recruitment checks were completed and there were enough staff to keep people safe. The home was also very clean.
The other four areas were rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found a tired and uninviting environment, little organised activity, staff focused mainly on tasks, and people not feeling involved in planning their care. Records were held on three systems, making oversight difficult.
The overall rating means the home was not consistently meeting the required standard, although inspectors found that the new manager had identified the problems and created an action plan. The previous inspection in December 2015 rated the service Good.
Medicines managed safely
Inspectors found that medicines records matched the medicines given. People who could manage their own medicines were supported to do so, with regular reviews.
“Medications were managed safely. We checked documentation and found that the balance in the medication cabinet was correct and matched what had been administered.” from the report
Strong health support
People received regular reviews and rehabilitation from the GP, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and other health professionals.
“The multi-disciplinary approach meant that people had open access to healthcare professionals and therefore received an exceptionally high level of on-going healthcare support.” from the report
Respect for privacy
Staff were observed treating people with respect, protecting their privacy and asking for consent before providing support.
“We saw that staff respected people's privacy and dignity, they knocked on doors before entering and waited patiently outside bathrooms until people requested their support.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was exceptionally clean, with suitable infection control practices and rooms deep cleaned between stays.
“The centre was very clean and people and their relatives told us they were happy with the cleanliness.” from the report
Too little social activity
needs fixingPeople spent most of their time in their bedrooms and said there were few organised activities. The manager planned to recruit an activities co-ordinator.
“We observed a general lack of stimulation during the inspection.” from the report
Staff were too task focused
needs fixingStaff said they did not have enough time to talk with people, encourage independence or get to know them.
“There is no chatter, we'd love to get to know people better but we can't, our job is task orientated” from the report
People not involved enough
needs fixingPeople and relatives said they had not been properly consulted about planning and delivering care. The manager had started a new engagement system.
“People and their relatives told us they did not feel involved in the planning and delivery of their care.” from the report
Records lacked clear oversight
needs fixingInformation was held on three separate systems. This sometimes caused confusion and meant care staff could not always see clinical information.
“documentation was stored on three separate systems which made it difficult for the manager to maintain complete oversight.” from the report
Tired surroundings
minorAlthough the environment was safe, inspectors found it uninviting and not homely. Communal rooms were not being used.
“The corridors were not homely and had a bare, industrial feel.” from the report
- 01What activities are now available, and how do you make sure short-stay residents are not spending most of their time alone?
- 02How much time do staff have to talk with residents and encourage independence?
- 03How are residents and relatives involved in planning and reviewing care now?
- 04Have care, clinical and mental capacity records been brought together, and who checks that staff can see the information they need?
- 05What improvements have been made to the tired corridors and unused communal areas?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of the residential care unit; the day care facilities in the building were not regulated or inspected by CQC. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 December 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.
Every inspection of Oakmeadow Community Support Centre
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- April 2020Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Oakmeadow Community Support Centre →
- December 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Oakmeadow Community Support Centre →
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 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 Halton
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. 89 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“It was clear that she genuinely cared and her warm approach really helped put our minds at ease.”
“He developed a close affinity with Terence, spending time talking with him before he retired to bed and looking after his needs during the night.”
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.