CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oban House Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious risks in safety, staffing and management despite some kind care.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 18 and 20 April 2023. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Inadequate overall. Safe and well-led were rated Inadequate, while Effective was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that risks from health conditions, falls, the building, infection control, staffing and medicines were not managed reliably.
There were also serious gaps in mental capacity assessments, staff training, care records, feedback and quality checks. People and relatives said staff were kind, and inspectors observed some caring interactions. The home had previously been rated Good in February 2020, but this inspection found that the overall rating had fallen to Inadequate.
Kind interactions
People and relatives described staff as kind and considerate. Inspectors observed staff offering choices and treating people kindly.
“People and their relatives told us staff were kind and considerate.” from the report
Access to healthcare
People mostly had access to healthcare services, including chiropodists, opticians and COVID-19 boosters. Inspectors also saw examples of staff working with healthcare professionals.
“I have found staff to be professional and friendly with the residents at all times.” from the report
Medicines usually given as prescribed
Inspectors saw people receiving medicines at the right times and according to their preferences. Medicines were organised in a new cupboard and disposal arrangements were safe.
“People received their medicines as prescribed, where people required medicines that needed to be administered at specific times, this was met.” from the report
Food choices
Menus were based on people's preferences and alternative dishes were available. Inspectors saw a relaxed mealtime where people were offered choices.
“Menus were designed around people's preferences and alternative dishes were available.” from the report
Health and accident risks
seriousRisk assessments for conditions such as diabetes, epilepsy and Parkinson's disease were incomplete or too vague. Falls and injuries were not consistently recorded, investigated or followed up.
“Without clear guidance, people were at risk of not receiving medical attention when required.” from the report
Unsafe recruitment and training
seriousSome staff started work before recruitment checks were complete. Training, induction and checks of staff skills were not always adequate.
“Without robust checks, there was a risk of people being supported by unsuitable staff.” from the report
Unsafe environment and infection control
seriousSome areas were in disrepair or cluttered, with items creating trip hazards. Parts of the home could not be cleaned properly, creating a potential cross-infection risk.
“This left people at potential risk of cross infection.” from the report
Mental capacity and restrictions
seriousThe registered manager had not completed mental capacity assessments, even though restrictions were in place for some people. The reasons for restrictions were not properly recorded or shown to be necessary and proportionate.
“The registered manager had not completed mental capacity assessments with people and did not demonstrate a working knowledge of the MCA.” from the report
Poor oversight and records
seriousQuality checks were not effective. Important care, accident, recruitment and medicine records were incomplete, missing or not securely stored.
“There were no quality assurance processes in place to highlight shortfalls in people's care records, such as, health needs and associated risks.” from the report
- 01What action has been completed to improve risk assessments for falls, diabetes, epilepsy, Parkinson's disease, catheters, nutrition and pressure damage?
- 02How do you now check that all staff have completed recruitment checks, have the right to work and receive a proper induction before working?
- 03What changes have been made to fire safety, building repairs, storage, clutter and infection control?
- 04How are mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions now recorded for people subject to restrictions?
- 05Can you show us recent quality audits, care record checks, accident reviews and feedback from people and relatives?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their ratings were not given in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 June 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 2020
Oban House Residential Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 04 February 2020. One inspector and one assistant inspector spoke with 11 people, three relatives, a visitor and six staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records, training information and management records, and sought views from health and social care professionals.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments, accurate medicine records and prompt responses to call bells.
People were treated kindly and involved in decisions about their care. Staff supported people's independence, communication needs, activities, relationships and healthcare. The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, especially in Safe and Well-led.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found accurate medicine administration records and improved guidance for medicines given when needed. Staff had been trained and assessed as competent.
“Five medication administration records were all completed accurately with no missing signatures.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described staff as friendly and caring. Inspectors observed unrushed interactions and support that protected privacy and dignity.
“We observed unrushed, caring interactions.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's likes, dislikes, communication needs and preferred support. Staff knew people well and supported their independence.
“Staff were knowledgeable about people's preferences and could explain how they supported people in line with their care plans.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to maintain important relationships and take part in activities suited to their interests. Staff also spent one-to-one time with people who did not want group activities.
“The programme was varied and inclusive of all, as people were supported to participate as much as they wanted and were able.” from the report
Improved management
The home had strengthened its quality checks since the previous inspection. Managers recorded actions in response to issues such as call bells and medicine deliveries.
“The registered manager had made improvements to the quality assurance system to protect people's safety.” from the report
Minor food hygiene improvements
minorA Food Standards Agency inspection had given the home a rating of 4 out of 5. The report said this was good, but that a few minor areas still needed improvement.
“This meant good food hygiene practices and safety systems, with only a few minor areas for improvement, were in place at the time of the inspection.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicines given 'as needed' since the previous inspection, and how are these checked now?
- 02How would you assess and support my relative's mobility, falls risk and use of specialist equipment?
- 03How will you support my relative's food, drink and weight needs, including any dietary preferences or health conditions?
- 04Which activities and one-to-one support would be available for my relative's interests and communication needs?
- 05What minor improvements were identified in the food hygiene inspection, and have they now been completed?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided, the premises, records and feedback from people, relatives, staff and other professionals. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 February 2020 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 Oban House Residential Care Home
6 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Requires improvement to Inadequate.
- June 2023Inadequatecurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate
Read what inspectors found at Oban House Residential Care Home →
- February 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Oban House Residential Care Home →
- February 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 26 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 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.