CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oakview Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, there were enough staff, recruitment checks were completed and medicines were safely stored and given as prescribed. Some guidance for occasional medicines could have included more detail, and actions from a recent fire risk assessment were still being addressed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care plans were in place. Staff were trained and supported, and worked with health professionals. Records about capacity, consent and best-interest decisions were not always complete or clear.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind, patient and respectful. People were supported to make choices, stay independent and be involved in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and staff knew people's preferences. People were supported with activities, community visits, communication and end-of-life care. Daily notes did not always record refusals of personal care or what staff had done in response.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, families and staff spoke positively about the management team. Audits, meetings and surveys were used to gather feedback and make improvements, and the home worked with outside services.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but some decision-making and care records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 January 2024. One inspector and an Expert by Experience looked around the home, observed care, reviewed records and spoke with people, families and staff.
Inspectors found enough suitably recruited staff, safe medicines arrangements and systems for managing risks. People said they felt safe. Staff were described as kind, respectful and knowledgeable about people's needs.
People received personalised care and support with meals, healthcare, activities and relationships. Families said communication was good and that managers were approachable. The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.
Inspectors recommended improvements to records about mental capacity, consent and best-interest decisions. They also noted some incomplete daily notes, actions from a fire risk assessment and areas needing refurbishment.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Inspectors found systems for assessing and managing risks, with enough staff to respond quickly.
“People felt safe and systems to assess, monitor and manage risk were in place and being used.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as kind, helpful and respectful. Inspectors saw positive relationships and found that people were encouraged to remain independent.
“People told us staff were very kind and caring.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's needs, likes and dislikes. Staff supported people with activities, community trips and healthcare appointments.
“Care plans were personalised, and staff clearly knew people well.” from the report
Good communication
Families said they were kept informed about health appointments and changes affecting their relative. People and families could give feedback and raise concerns.
“Families told us communication was good and they were kept up to date with how their family member was.” from the report
End-of-life support
Relatives who had experienced end-of-life care spoke very positively about the support given to the person and family.
“Relatives who had a family member who had received end of life care were very complimentary about how staff had supported the person and family.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingRecords did not always clearly show capacity assessments, consent and best-interest decisions. The CQC recommended that the provider review its processes.
“Further work was needed to ensure robust assessments of capacity, clear consent and records of best interest decision were maintained as this was not always in place or clear.” from the report
Incomplete daily notes
needs fixingDaily notes did not always record when people refused parts of their personal care or what staff did afterwards. This made management oversight and escalation more difficult.
“However daily notes did not always reflect where people were refusing certain aspects of personal care and what action had been taken.” from the report
Fire safety actions
needs fixingA recent fire risk assessment identified actions that still needed to be completed. The provider was arranging for these to be addressed.
“A recent fire risk assessment had identified some actions required and the provider was in the process of making arrangements for these to be addressed.” from the report
Some areas need updating
minorSome parts of the home and some equipment needed refurbishment or updating. The provider had a rolling programme of redecoration and improvements.
“There were some areas of the home where a refurbishment or update was needed to ensure that equipment was easy to clean.” from the report
- 01How are capacity assessments, consent and best-interest decisions recorded, and what has changed since the inspection?
- 02How do you record and review refusals of personal care, including any action taken afterwards?
- 03What actions from the recent fire risk assessment remain outstanding, and when will they be completed?
- 04Which parts of the home or equipment are due for refurbishment, and what is the timetable?
- 05How are variable-dose and other occasional medicines explained to staff?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five rating areas, including the building and the care provided; the previous Good ratings from 2018 were reviewed and remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 February 2024 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, October 2018
Oakview Residential Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since earlier medicine and audit breaches.
Inspectors visited on 10 and 16 August 2018. The first visit was unannounced. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a visiting district nurse. They also observed care and checked medicines, care files, recruitment, training and management records.
All five areas were rated Good. People said they felt safe and cared for. Inspectors found that medicines were stored and given safely, risks were reviewed, staff were trained, and care plans reflected people's needs, choices and cultures.
Staff treated people with kindness and respect and supported their independence. People could take part in activities, maintain links with family and the community, and raise concerns. Since the October 2016 inspection, the home had improved its medicine checks and quality audits and was meeting the requirements that had previously been breached.
Safer medicine management
Medicines were stored securely, given by trained senior staff and checked weekly. Inspectors found the records and medicine balances were correct.
“Audits of the medicines were conducted every week which included counting the number of tablets to ensure the number of tablets remaining was correct and the medicine administration sheets (MARs) had been correctly completed.” from the report
Kind and personal care
Staff knew people well and adapted their support to individual preferences. People were treated respectfully and encouraged to do what they could for themselves.
“People were treated with kindness and respect by staff that knew them well.” from the report
Food and cultural choices
Meals were freshly prepared and included choices to reflect people's cultural preferences. Staff supported people to eat and drink patiently.
“Meals were freshly prepared in the home and people's cultural preferences were reflected in the meals offered to them.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could join outings, social events, exercise sessions, music and activities in the garden. The home also supported religious practice and contact with family.
“Staff in the home arranged outings to local places of interest and other social events and people living in the home were invited to activities that had been arranged in other homes owned by the provider.” from the report
Improved oversight
The home had strengthened its medicine audits and introduced other regular quality checks. Inspectors said the earlier requirements were now being met.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the service was now meeting these requirements.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are the weekly medicine audits carried out now, and what happens if a discrepancy is found?
- 02How are care plans reviewed when a person's needs, choices or capacity changes?
- 03What activities and outings are currently available, and how are they matched to each person's interests and culture?
- 04How are relatives involved in reviewing care plans and making suggestions about the home?
- 05What arrangements are currently in place for end-of-life care if a resident wishes to remain at the home?
This was an inspection of the overall quality of the care home, covering all five key questions; the first day was unannounced. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 October 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 Oakview Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Oakview Residential Care Home →
- October 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Oakview Residential Care Home →
- January 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 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 Stockport
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. 88 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.