CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oakwood Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risk assessments, staffing, recruitment, medicines management and infection control were found to be suitable.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received care based on assessments of their needs and preferences. Staff were trained, people were supported with food and drink, and staff worked with healthcare professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report does not give a new Caring rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report does not give a new Responsive rating.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The provider's audits did not identify missing information in some records. Some care plans were not reviewed consistently, and records did not always show what action had been taken when people raised health concerns.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Oakwood Rest Home rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective care, but management checks and care records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 17 and 18 January 2023. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Effective were both rated Good. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, received medicines safely, had enough staff and were supported by trained staff. People were asked for consent and received support with food, drink and healthcare.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement, as at the previous inspection. The provider's audits had not found missing information in some care records. Some care plans were not reviewed consistently, and records did not always show what action had been taken when people raised health concerns.
The overall rating remained Good. This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led. Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were carried forward.
People were kept safe
Staff understood safeguarding and risks. There were enough staff to support people, and recruitment checks had been completed.
“There were robust risk assessments in place to guide staff to how they should support people safely.” from the report
Medicines were managed safely
People received medicines as prescribed. Staff were trained and checked as competent, and medicine records were accurate.
“People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Trained and supported staff
New staff completed induction and shadowing. Staff and relatives said staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs.
“New staff had completed an induction programme which involved training and shadowing more experienced staff members.” from the report
Choice and consent
Staff asked for consent before providing care and involved people in decisions. Staff supported people in the least restrictive way and in their best interests.
“People were asked for their consent before they received any care and treatment.” from the report
Positive views from people and relatives
People and relatives spoke positively about the care and how the home was run. Relatives were given several ways to provide feedback.
“People and their relatives spoke positively about the care they received and of the way the service was run.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingThe provider's audits did not identify missing information in some care records. The provider updated the records after the inspection.
“Audits undertaken by the provider were not effective at monitoring the quality of the service, some people's care records contained missing information.” from the report
Care plans were not always reviewed
needs fixingSome care plans had not been reviewed consistently. The manager said a dedicated staff member had been arranged to complete the required reviews.
“We found some people's care plans had not been consistently reviewed.” from the report
Records did not always show action taken
needs fixingSome daily notes recorded people's concerns but did not show what action had followed. The manager said the issue had been acted on, but accepted that the records needed to show this more clearly.
“Some people's concerns were recorded but not always acted upon.” from the report
- 01How are you now checking that every person's care plan is reviewed regularly?
- 02Who is responsible for checking that care records contain all required information?
- 03How do you record and follow up health concerns raised by residents?
- 04What evidence can you show that the improvements to records and care plan reviews have been sustained?
- 05What were the previous ratings for Caring and Responsive, which were not inspected during this visit?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 March 2023 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, February 2021
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe care, but management systems still needed improvement.
This was a focused inspection on 16 December 2020. Inspectors looked at whether people were safe and whether the home was well managed. They spoke with people, staff and relatives, and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe. People appeared comfortable, staff knew their needs, staffing levels met people's needs and medicines were generally given as prescribed. Infection control arrangements, including personal protective equipment, were in place.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Audits had not found some problems, including incomplete medicine instructions and incidents that had not always been reported to the registered manager. The manager had started changes to improve oversight.
The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection. However, this was a focused inspection, so the other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection.
Staff knew people well
Staff understood people's risks and changing care needs. Inspectors found that people appeared comfortable with the staff supporting them.
“From our conversations with staff, it was clear they knew people well and how to support them safely.” from the report
Timely staffing
People said staff responded quickly when they needed help. The home used a dependency tool to plan staffing around people's needs.
“People told us staff responded to their needs in a timely manner and we observed this.” from the report
Infection control arrangements
Staff followed current infection control guidance and had access to personal protective equipment. Inspectors were assured about testing, admissions and hygiene arrangements.
“Staff followed the latest infection control guidance and had access to supplies of personal protective equipment.” from the report
Medicine instructions lacked detail
seriousSome instructions for as-required medicines did not explain clearly enough when they should be given. Inspectors said this could lead to inconsistent use, and the home said it would be addressed immediately.
“This lack of detail could place people at risk of receiving this medication inconsistently.” from the report
Audits missed problems
needs fixingThe home's monitoring systems had not identified several issues found during the inspection. This meant leaders did not always have a complete picture of service quality.
“Although some improvements had been made, the provider's audits had failed to identify a number of areas that came to light on inspection.” from the report
COVID-19 risk records needed improvement
needs fixingCOVID-19 risk assessments were not person-centred, there was limited infection control signage, and risk assessments for higher-risk staff had not been completed. The provider gave assurances this would be prioritised.
“Risk assessments for staff who were considered to be at higher risk of infection had not been put in place.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that instructions for as-required medicines are complete, current and followed consistently?
- 02How are accidents, incidents and calls to healthcare professionals reported to the registered manager?
- 03What changes have the new audits and handover system made since the inspection?
- 04Have person-centred COVID-19 risk assessments, higher-risk staff assessments and infection control signage now been completed?
- 05What were the previous ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive, which were not inspected during this visit?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 February 2021 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 Oakwood Care Home
7 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2021Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 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 Birmingham
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 £950 to £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.