CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oakmount House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments and medicines systems that were managed safely. Infection control measures and visiting arrangements were also in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed, staff had training and regular supervision, and people were supported with food, health appointments and daily routines. The Mental Capacity Act was understood and used.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with dignity and respect. They were involved in decisions about their care, new admissions and staff appointments.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reviewed with people. People were supported to take part in activities, maintain relationships and access the community, and complaints were responded to.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive and empowering culture. The manager was described as approachable, and audits, meetings and feedback systems were used to oversee and improve the home.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Oakmount House is rated Good; inspectors found safe, respectful care with well-supported people and improvements to medicines guidance.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 24 October 2022. They spoke with three people, five staff and the provider. They reviewed care and medicines records, staff files and management records. They also observed medicines being given, checked the building and looked at infection control.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and were treated with dignity. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, safe medicines systems and suitable risk checks.
People had choices about their care, food and activities. Staff received training, supervision and a 14-week induction. Care was personalised, families were kept informed and people were supported to access the community and health services.
The previous rating was also Good, published in March 2018. Safe had previously been rated Requires Improvement, but this changed to Good. The home had acted on the earlier recommendation to update its medicines policies in line with NICE guidance.
Safe care
People said they felt safe. Inspectors found that risks, incidents, recruitment, medicines and infection control were being managed.
“Systems and processes were in place to keep people safe from abuse. People told us they felt safe.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had strong training support, regular supervision and appraisals. The home also provided a 14-week induction programme.
“Staff development and training was strongly supported in the service. Training compliance was high.” from the report
Respect and choice
People were involved in decisions about their care and daily routines. Staff supported independence and treated people respectfully.
“People were treated with dignity and respect. We observed staff positively engaging with people in the service.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to take part in meaningful activities, maintain friendships and access the community. This included holidays and trips that reflected their wishes.
“People were able to access the community and took part in meaningful activities. People's wishes and views were considered.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff were involved in decisions and gave positive feedback. The manager used audits, meetings and incident reviews to monitor the service.
“A positive and empowering culture existed in the home.” from the report
Medicines policy still developing
minorThe medicines policy had improved after the previous inspection, but inspectors said it could be improved further. An updated copy was provided during the inspection.
“We observed the policy could be improved further, and the registered manager provided an updated copy to show this information had been incorporated.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure there are enough staff to respond promptly when the home is busy?
- 02What extra support is available at night if the service becomes unsettled?
- 03How do you keep the medicines policy updated and make sure staff follow it?
- 04How will you involve my relative in reviewing their care plan, activities and daily routines?
- 05How will you support my relative to access health services and activities in the community?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control, with checks of care, medicines, staffing, the building and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 December 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.
What inspectors found, March 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but the Safe rating Requires Improvement because medicines and some safety arrangements needed work.
Inspectors visited on 24 and 25 January 2018. The first day was unannounced. They spoke with six people, staff and managers, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment, training, complaints and quality records.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement because medicines policies needed more detail, suitable storage for controlled drugs was not yet available, and some radiators were not protected.
The home had improved since the previous inspection in January 2016, when it was rated Requires Improvement and had breached regulations about oversight. Inspectors found no regulatory breaches at this inspection, but recommended further improvement in medicines management.
Kind and respectful care
People spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed caring interactions and found that privacy, dignity and individuality were respected.
“We observed meaningful and positive interactions between people using the service and staff.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's needs, preferences, routines and goals. People were involved in planning and reviewing their support.
“Everyone had a support plan which identified their individual needs and preferences and how they wished to be supported.” from the report
Improved management
Management oversight and quality checks had improved since the previous inspection. The provider was visiting regularly and holding monthly quality meetings.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made.” from the report
Medicines policies
seriousInspectors found the medicines policies did not give enough step-by-step guidance. They also lacked guidance about covert administration and over-the-counter remedies.
“We recommend that the provider considers the current National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) guidance on medicines management and take action to review and update their policies and procedures accordingly.” from the report
Unprotected radiators
needs fixingRisk assessments had been completed, but some radiators still did not have guards or safe-temperature fittings. Covers were planned for two bedrooms with the highest identified risks.
“We noted radiators had not been fitted with guards to ensure safe temperatures.” from the report
Management records
minorInspectors suggested that visits by the provider should be recorded in reports to show what was checked and what needed to improve.
“However, we suggested the provider should complete a report of their findings on the unannounced visits, to constructively demonstrate their oversight.” from the report
- 01Has the suitable storage cabinet for controlled drugs now been installed, and how is it checked?
- 02Have the medicines policies been updated to cover covert administration and over-the-counter remedies?
- 03Have radiator covers been fitted in the two bedrooms identified as having the highest risks?
- 04How are medicines audits followed up when they find a shortfall?
- 05How does the provider record the findings and actions from unannounced visits?
This was a comprehensive inspection of the overall service, covering Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 March 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 Oakmount House
4 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 July 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.