CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oakwood Lodge
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Staff did not always follow infection control guidance, including mask-wearing, creating an increased risk of infection. Staffing, medicines, recruitment and other safety arrangements had improved.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report said people were treated kindly and their privacy and dignity were respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report said people could take part in meaningful activities and make choices about their lives.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management and leadership were still inconsistent. There was no registered manager, although the current manager had applied to become registered, and systems for monitoring quality were being improved.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and enough staff, but infection control was not always safe.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 4 November 2020. One inspector spoke with people, staff and relatives, and checked care, medicines, recruitment, infection control and management records.
The main safety concern was infection control during the COVID-19 pandemic. Several staff were not wearing masks as required, including in communal areas. This exposed people to a risk of infection and was a breach of Regulation 12.
Inspectors also found improvements since the previous inspection. Records had moved to an electronic system, the environment had been made safer, medicines arrangements had improved, and there were enough staff. People were described as receiving kind and respectful care.
The overall rating changed from Good to Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. The other key questions were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were used.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated kindly, and staff understood the importance of privacy and dignity.
“People were seen to be treated in a kind and caring manner and staff understood the importance of maintaining their privacy and dignity.” from the report
Enough familiar staff
People and relatives said there were enough staff, call bells were answered promptly, and agency staff were not being used.
“People and their relatives told us there were enough staff on duty to meet their needs.” from the report
Improved medicines and records
Medicines arrangements had improved, and medicines were stored safely with access limited to trained staff. Electronic records and better systems were helping staff identify risks.
“We found improved arrangements were in place to safely order, administer and dispose of people's medicines in line with national guidelines.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found strong cleaning checks and a clean, fresh environment. Some flooring and bathroom areas had also been improved.
“Cleaning audits were robust, and the home presented as very clean and fresh.” from the report
Activities and involvement
People were supported to join activities, and relatives valued seeing their participation through private social media updates.
“The variety of activities is brilliant and although I never thought my relative would want to join in, I am pleased to see the photographs on social media.” from the report
Masks were not always worn
seriousSeveral staff were not wearing masks when they should have been, including in communal areas. Inspectors said this increased the risk of people acquiring infectious diseases, including COVID-19.
“We saw several staff not wearing masks when we entered the premises, and during the inspection.” from the report
Management systems still developing
minorThe manager had recently experienced problems accessing CQC reporting systems. There was also no registered manager in post at the time of the inspection.
“The manager had been unable to access the CQC's reporting systems.” from the report
- 01What changes were made after staff were found not to be wearing masks in communal areas?
- 02How do managers now check that infection control guidance is followed every day?
- 03Has the current manager's application to register with CQC been completed?
- 04What progress has been made with the action plan requested by CQC?
- 05How are the new electronic care records being checked for accuracy and completeness?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; the other key question ratings were not inspected and carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 January 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.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Frampton House was rated Good overall, but inspectors found weaknesses in records, safety checks and management.
This was an unannounced inspection on 23 July 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive care. Inspectors found enough staff, kind and respectful care, suitable support with food and healthcare, and activities that reflected people's interests.
The Well-led rating was Requires Improvement. Management checks had not always found incomplete or outdated care records, clutter that could cause trips, or a lack of privacy during staff handovers. Three safeguarding issues had also not been reported to CQC as required.
The overall rating remained Good, the same as at the previous inspection. However, the Well-led rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement. Inspectors said they were assured that action would be taken.
Enough staff
People and relatives said there were enough staff, and inspectors saw call bells answered promptly. The home did not use agency staff to cover shortfalls.
“There were enough staff employed in the home to ensure people's needs, wishes and preferences were met in a timely manner.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were caring and respected their privacy, dignity and choices. Inspectors saw staff ask permission before entering bedrooms and encourage independence.
“People were treated in a kind and caring manner and staff understood the importance of maintaining their privacy and dignity.” from the report
Access to healthcare
People could see healthcare professionals when needed. Staff understood people's health needs and sought advice from health professionals.
“People were able to see healthcare professionals when they needed to and they received their medicines in the ways that were prescribed for them.” from the report
Incomplete care records
needs fixingSome care plans and risk assessments had not been updated when people's needs changed. Inspectors said this could increase the risk of people not receiving care suited to their needs.
“This would increase the risk that people may not receive care appropriate to their need.” from the report
Safeguarding notifications
needs fixingThe registered manager had not told CQC about three safeguarding issues. The manager described this as an oversight and said future notifications would be made properly.
“The registered manager had not notified us of three safeguarding issues.” from the report
Clutter and handover privacy
seriousCorridors contained items that could cause trips. Staff handovers took place in a communal dining room, which could compromise the confidentiality of people's personal information.
“Management oversight of the environment had failed to identify potential tripping hazards caused by well used upstairs and ground floor corridors being cluttered with, for example, continence products, boxes of aprons and gloves and empty appliance boxes.” from the report
Weak quality checks
needs fixingManagement monitoring had not consistently identified shortfalls in records and the environment. The home said it would review care records and improve handover arrangements.
“Quality monitoring systems and management oversight had not always been effective at highlighting shortfalls within the service, for example in some areas of record keeping and keeping the environment safe.” from the report
- 01Have all care plans and risk assessments been updated when people's needs change?
- 02How do you now make sure every safeguarding issue is reported to CQC when required?
- 03Where do staff hold shift handovers now, and how is people's personal information kept confidential?
- 04What changes have been made to remove and prevent clutter or other tripping hazards?
- 05Has the move to computerised care records been completed, and how are records checked for accuracy?
This inspection covered all five CQC key questions, with the overall rating remaining Good and the Well-led rating falling from Good to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 October 2019 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 Lodge
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- January 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.