What the CQC found at Oakridge House Care Home with Nursing

Inspectors found enough staff during the visit. Staff supported people in a positive and unhurried way, and call bells were answered promptly.

“There were enough staff to keep people safe and meet people's needs.” from the report

Staff understood the signs of abuse and knew how to raise concerns. People told inspectors they felt safe.

“Staff were aware of the risks of abuse and poor care, and what to do if they were to witness or suspect instances of abuse.” from the report

Staff appeared to understand people's needs around eating and drinking. Inspectors observed pleasant interactions and support for someone at risk of malnutrition.

“Staff appeared to have a good knowledge of how to support people at lunchtime.” from the report

The home appeared visibly clean. Staff were observed using the provided protective equipment and food hygiene procedures were followed.

“Staff were observed to follow the provider's infection control policy and wore the personal protective equipment provided, to reduce the risk of people acquiring an infection.” from the report

Some risk assessments were thorough, but others contradicted each other. This could affect whether people received safe and suitable care.

“Some were very thorough and kept people safe. Some were contradictory and might have an impact on people being cared for safely and in a way that met their needs.” from the report

Falls and medicine errors were not always investigated fully or followed by action to reduce the chance of them happening again.

“Where safety incidents had occurred, for example falls and medicine errors, sufficient action was not always taken to minimise the risk of re-occurrence and seek guidance and support from health care professionals.” from the report

Medicines were generally given by competent staff, but records for administration and stock counts were confusing. One nurse had not yet completed medicines training.

“The records used to monitor medication administration and stock count were confusing.” from the report

The system for monitoring training was ineffective. Some staff files had gaps in work history and lacked satisfactory evidence about conduct in previous health or social care employment.

“However, some staff files checked had gaps in work history and did not include satisfactory evidence of conduct in previous employment relating to health or social care.” from the report

Audits did not always identify missing updates in care plans and risk assessments. Evidence of action after repeated incidents was not always readily available.

“The audits had not always identified where updates were required to reflect people's current needs.” from the report

Shared reception items were not disinfected between uses, ventilation could have been better, and visitor testing arrangements were not initially following the stated guidance.

“Shared items in reception were not disinfected between use which could be a way of spreading infection.” from the report