CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oakwood Grange
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks were assessed, there were enough staff, medicines were generally handled safely and infection control arrangements were in place, although some medicines records had discrepancies.
- Effective?
- Good
- People’s needs and preferences were assessed and reflected in care plans. Staff had relevant training, people were supported with nutrition and hydration, and healthcare referrals were made when needed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff respecting privacy, dignity and choice, and encouraging people to remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and plans were reviewed. People had choices about activities and daily life, communication needs were recorded, and complaints were investigated.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had visible leadership, clear responsibilities and an open culture. Audits were in place, but the frequency of some audits was not always enough to identify issues quickly.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Oakwood Grange was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some medicines recording and audit issues.
This was the home’s first inspection since it registered. The visit was unannounced and took place on 2 December 2022. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional, and checked care records, medicines, recruitment and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, regular risk checks and suitable infection control. People were supported with medicines, food, drinks and access to healthcare.
Inspectors found staff were kind and respectful. People had choices and personalised care plans. Activities were available, complaints were recorded and investigated, and the management team was described as open and approachable.
There were some discrepancies in medicines records, including a missing signature and missing opening dates on some liquids. The manager said the frequency of some audits would be reviewed so issues could be found sooner.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people’s needs. Staff were present and responded quickly to requests during the visit.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Inspectors saw staff respect privacy, dignity and personal choice.
“People told us they were treated well and the staff team were kind and caring.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people’s histories, preferences and needs. Staff knew people well and used this information to provide individual care.
“People received person centred care that meant they had choice, control and their needs and preferences were met.” from the report
Activities and choice
The home offered a range of activities, including options for people living with dementia. People could choose whether to join in or do their own thing.
“There were a range of activities on offer to meet the needs of people living with dementia.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff described the management as approachable and supportive. The home had systems for feedback, complaints and learning from incidents.
“The home's management and leadership were visible with a culture of openness, positivity and honesty.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingInspectors found recording discrepancies, including a missing signature and missing opening dates on some liquid medicines. There was no evidence of medicine errors or harm, but the records needed closer checking.
“We found some discrepancies in recording but no evidence of any medicine errors or harm, for example a missing signature on the administration record and not all liquids had an 'opened on' date.” from the report
Audit timing
minorThe audit systems identified some issues, but some audits were not frequent enough to find problems promptly. The manager said this would be reviewed.
“The frequency of these audits was not always conducive to identifying issues in a timely way.” from the report
- 01How often are medicines administration records and liquid medicine opening dates checked now?
- 02What changes have been made to the frequency of medicines and other quality audits?
- 03How will you make sure any medicines recording discrepancies are found and corrected quickly?
- 04How are my relative’s personal preferences, communication needs and daily routines recorded and reviewed?
- 05What activities and healthcare support would be available for my relative’s particular needs?
This was the first comprehensive inspection of the newly registered home and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 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.
Every inspection of Oakwood Grange
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2021
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 May 2021.
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 99 live-in carers within about an hour of Barnsley
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. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Ivy was very kind and gentle in all her dealings with my late mother. They got on very well and were able to share a joke and a laugh.”
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.