CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Oakwood House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found safeguarding, risk management, equipment checks, infection control and medicines management were generally safe. Some food, fluid and other daily records were not always clear or complete.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care was adapted when hospital information was inaccurate. Staff were trained, healthcare needs were managed well and people were supported with food, drink and healthcare.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and caring, respected privacy and dignity, and supported independence. People were involved in daily care decisions, although some relatives had not recently reviewed their relative's care plan.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's preferences, communication needs and life histories. Activities were enjoyed, but people wanted more opportunities and there were no structured activities planned on the first inspection day.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found open management, regular meetings, effective audits and good partnership working. Leaders had identified recording problems and were introducing an electronic system.
What inspectors found, March 2023
Oakwood House Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with some records and activity arrangements needing improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection over three visits in February 2023. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines records and other safety and quality records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, a clean environment, kind staff and good partnership working with health and social care professionals.
The main shortfalls were in record keeping. Fluid intake and repositioning records were sometimes incomplete or inconsistent, although inspectors found staff knew people's needs and did not find evidence that care had not been provided. The home was also recruiting another activities co-ordinator because activities were not yet available every day.
Good means the inspectors found the service was performing well overall and meeting the relevant standards at the time of the inspection. This was the first rated inspection of the new provider. The previous provider was also rated Good in August 2018.
Kind and respectful staff
People spoke highly of staff, who were observed to be kind, friendly and respectful. Staff knocked before entering rooms and supported people's privacy and independence.
“They are all just wonderful…. The place I came from before – the staff didn't care but here, nothing is too much trouble.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's preferences and life histories. Staff knew people's routines, likes and dislikes and supported them to keep doing tasks they could manage.
“Care plans were person centred and contained specific details about people's care needs and preferences.” from the report
Safe medicines and environment
Inspectors found medicines were administered safely and records were clear. The home was clean and well maintained, with safety equipment checked regularly.
“Medicine rooms were well organised, and records were clear and accurate.” from the report
Good healthcare partnership working
The home worked effectively with GPs, nurses, specialist teams and other professionals. Referrals were made promptly and professional advice was recorded and followed.
“There was clear evidence of staff working in partnership with other health and social care professionals” from the report
Open management
The manager and deputy were visible and approachable. Audits, meetings and improvement plans were used to monitor and develop the service.
“The culture within the service was open and the manager and deputy were very visible throughout the service” from the report
Incomplete daily records
needs fixingSome records of fluid intake and repositioning were incomplete or inconsistent. Inspectors judged this to be a records problem rather than evidence that care was not being given, and an electronic system was being introduced.
“We found occasional gaps and inconsistencies in daily recording in room folders for people's fluid intake and repositioning for example.” from the report
Activities were not yet every day
needs fixingThere were no structured activities planned on the first inspection day. The home was recruiting another activities co-ordinator to provide activities seven days a week, and people said they wanted more to do.
“On the first day of our inspection there were no structured activities planned for people.” from the report
Some relatives had not reviewed care plans
minorTwo relatives said they had not had a care plan review since their family member was admitted. The manager said this would be addressed.
“Two relatives told us they had not had a review of their family member's care plan since admission to the service.” from the report
Hospital information was sometimes inaccurate
needs fixingStaff said hospital discharge notes did not always accurately describe people's needs. The home reassessed people quickly and sought extra care hours or more suitable accommodation when needed.
“Staff told us sometimes the discharge notes from hospital were not accurate and staff found people's needs were greater than anticipated.” from the report
- 01What improvements have been made to records of drinks, fluid intake and repositioning since the inspection?
- 02Are structured activities now available every day, and how are residents' individual interests included?
- 03How often will our relative's care plan be reviewed, and how will relatives be invited to take part?
- 04How do you check a person's needs when hospital discharge information is incomplete or inaccurate?
- 05Is the new manager's application to register with CQC now complete?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of the new provider, covering all five key questions, the premises, care and infection prevention and control. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 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, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 infection prevention and visiting arrangements.
Inspectors made an announced, targeted visit on 25 March 2021. They checked how the home was prepared to prevent and control COVID-19 infection.
They were assured that the home used PPE safely, arranged regular testing, followed social distancing rules and had plans for isolation. Staff and visitors had their temperatures checked on arrival.
The home supported phone and video calls, risk-assessed visits and had built a visiting pod. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Infection prevention
Inspectors found that the home had measures to reduce the risk of COVID-19 spreading, including testing, PPE, social distancing and isolation arrangements.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Safer visiting
The home supported contact with families through phone and video calls, risk-assessed visits and a visiting pod.
“The service had constructed a visiting pod with external access to facilitate easier and safer visiting.” from the report
Support for people isolating
There were arrangements and clear procedures for caring for people who had COVID-19 or had recently arrived from hospital or the community.
“There was clear information and procedures for staff to care for people who were isolating.” from the report
Staff wellbeing
The home used measures intended to support staff wellbeing and morale while reducing mixing during breaks.
“The service facilitated and encouraged measures aimed at increasing staff wellbeing and morale such as 'silly' days where staff wore brightly coloured socks.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What infection prevention and visiting arrangements are in place now, and how have they changed since the inspection on 25 March 2021?
- 02How would you support my relative to keep in touch with family if in-person visits were restricted?
- 03What arrangements would be used if my relative needed to isolate after arriving from hospital or the community?
- 04What are the home's current ratings for care quality, staffing, medicines and leadership, as these areas were not assessed in this inspection?
- 05How are risks assessed and managed for people who may be particularly vulnerable to COVID-19?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other four quality questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 April 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 House Care Home
2 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 June 2019.
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
13 live-in carers within about an hour of Norfolk
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 £990 to £1,120 a week. 9 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
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.