CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oakwood House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection control, protective equipment, testing, cleaning and visiting arrangements. The provider was recruiting four additional staff after COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- No separate finding or rating was given for this area in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- No separate finding or rating was given for this area in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- No separate finding or rating was given for this area in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- No separate finding or rating was given for this area in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control, while staffing pressures were being addressed.
The inspection took place on 22 February 2022. It was a targeted, unannounced visit, with short notice given from outside the home because of COVID-19 risks. Inspectors were checking infection control and asking about staffing pressures.
Inspectors found good practice in infection control. The home had enough protective equipment, regular cleaning, staff training, testing and an up-to-date infection control policy. People were supported to see their families under the guidance in force at the time.
The provider said COVID-19 had caused staffing pressures. The home had learned lessons from a recent outbreak and had started recruiting four more staff. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not provide an overall judgement on the quality of care.
Infection control
The premises and equipment were visibly clean. Cleaning schedules and audits were used to monitor standards.
“The premises and equipment were visibly clean and regular cleaning schedules and audits were completed to monitor the IPC standards within the home.” from the report
Protective equipment
Staff had access to protective equipment and were observed using it correctly. They had also completed infection control training.
“Staff completed IPC training and were observed to be wearing the correct PPE and following best practice.” from the report
Family contact
People were supported to keep in contact with families and loved ones, with visiting arrangements following the guidance in force at the time.
“People were fully supported to maintaining contact with families and loved ones.” from the report
Individual needs
Inspectors found that the management team put the needs of people living at the home first and considered their emotional and psychological wellbeing.
“The management team at Oakwood House clearly put the needs of the people living at the home first to help ensure care provided was focused on their individual needs.” from the report
Staffing pressures
needs fixingThe provider had experienced staffing pressures linked to COVID-19. It had started recruiting four additional staff to strengthen cover.
“Following a recent COVID-19 outbreak in the service, lessons had been learned to ensure safe staffing levels of skilled staff were available to cover any staff shortfalls.” from the report
Social distancing
minorThe complex needs of people living at the home made social distancing and isolation difficult during the outbreak. The home used rooms and a communal area in zones as far as possible.
“Due to the complex needs of the people living at the service it is difficult to ensure social distancing and isolation is maintained, as required.” from the report
- 01What progress has been made with recruiting the four additional staff mentioned in the report?
- 02How do you maintain safe staffing levels and skilled cover when staff are absent?
- 03What lessons from the recent COVID-19 outbreak have been put into practice now?
- 04How would you manage social distancing, isolation and zoning if there were another infection outbreak?
- 05What are the current arrangements for visiting, testing and protective equipment?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 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.
What inspectors found, November 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but safeguarding matters had not been reported to the CQC.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 September 2017. It was the first inspection since the home registered. One inspector observed care, spoke with staff, a relative and a health professional, and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment and other records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable training, safe medicines systems, detailed support plans and warm relationships between staff and residents.
The home had systems for managing incidents, accidents and safeguarding matters. However, inspectors noted that the CQC had not been notified about some matters that had been reported to the local authority. No breaches of regulations or enforcement action were recorded in the report.
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw staff interacting warmly and compassionately with residents. Staff understood how people communicated, including when they could not express their wishes verbally.
“During our inspection we observed warm, kind and compassionate interactions between staff and people living at the home.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans gave staff detailed information about each person's needs, preferences, relationships and risks. People and their relatives or advocates were included where possible.
“Support plans were individualised and contained information such as, managing risks and support, all about me, my involvement and others, my support plan, who is in my life etc.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, given and disposed of appropriately. Records had no gaps in signatures and were checked weekly by the manager.
“Medicine administration records (MAR) were all completed fully, with no gaps in signatures to confirm the right medicines had been given to people at the right time.” from the report
Trained staff
Staff had completed mandatory training and received support through induction, supervision and appraisal. Training also covered the specific health needs of people living in the home.
“All staff had completed appropriate training to support them in their roles.” from the report
CQC notifications
needs fixingThe manager reported safeguarding matters, incidents and accidents to the relevant local authority team, but the CQC had not been notified of these. Families should ask how the home now checks that required notifications are made.
“During inspection, we observed that the registered manager had reported any safeguarding matters, incidents or accidents to the relevant local authority team, although the Care Quality Commission had not been notified of these.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure safeguarding matters, incidents and accidents are reported to the CQC when required?
- 02How many staff are on duty during the day and at night, and how do you cover vacancies, sickness and annual leave?
- 03How are changes in a resident's needs recorded and shared with all staff?
- 04How do you involve residents, relatives or advocates in reviewing support plans?
- 05How do you check that medicines continue to be recorded correctly and that audits lead to action where needed?
This was an unannounced first inspection since registration and covered all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 November 2017 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
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- November 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 July 2015.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.