CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Okeley Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks such as falls, choking, mobility, skin care and eating and drinking were assessed and managed. Inspectors found safe medicines systems, suitable infection control and enough staff during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisals. People's food, drink and healthcare needs were met, and staff worked with healthcare professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with care, kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people's personalities, wishes and support needs and encouraged independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were comprehensive and person-centred. The home offered activities, supported relationships and communication needs, and investigated complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found stable leadership, open communication and robust quality checks. People, relatives and staff were asked for their views and feedback was used to make improvements.
What inspectors found, September 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since earlier inspections.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection. Inspectors visited on 16 August 2023 and also gathered information between 14 and 31 August. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They reviewed care plans, recruitment files, medicines records, training records and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found suitable systems to manage risks, medicines, infection control and staffing. People received appropriate healthcare, food and support with their choices.
People and relatives gave positive feedback. Inspectors saw staff treating people with kindness, dignity and respect. Care plans were personalised, activities were available and complaints were investigated.
The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors said improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, wishes, preferences, communication methods and interests. Staff were able to describe people's histories and likes and dislikes.
“People's care plans were comprehensive and person centred.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw warm and respectful interactions. Staff gave people time, responded gently when they were distressed and supported their independence.
“We saw many examples of how warm, non-judgemental, and respectful the staff were to people.” from the report
Safe medicines and risk management
Risks were assessed and reviewed, and inspectors observed medicines being given correctly and safely. Records showed medicines were given on time and as prescribed.
“Medicine records were maintained to a good standard, and demonstrated people received their medicines on time and as prescribed.” from the report
Activities and relationships
The home offered activities across its floors and supported people to maintain relationships. People's choices about joining activities were respected.
“People were actively encouraged to join in group sessions, but their choices about where they spent their leisure time were respected.” from the report
Improved leadership
The report says leadership had become stable and the management team had effective systems for checking quality and acting on problems.
“We found that this had been achieved and care provided to people using the service was person-centred, open, inclusive, and focused on people's individual care and support needs.” from the report
Occasional staffing pressure
minorOne relative said staff sometimes seemed short when their relative needed help to use the toilet. Inspectors found enough staff on duty during the visit, but this is worth discussing with the home.
“Sometimes they seem short of staff if [relative] wants to go to the toilet as they have to go to find another staff member to help.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure there are enough staff to help people promptly with toileting and other personal care at busy times?
- 02How will you record and review my relative's communication needs, preferences and personal routines?
- 03What activities or quieter alternatives would be suitable if my relative does not enjoy noisy group sessions?
- 04How will you involve me in care reviews and tell me about changes in my relative's health or support needs?
- 05What checks are being used to make sure the improvements since the Requires Improvement rating continue?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering all five key questions, with infection prevention and control also checked under Safe; inspection activity ran from 14 to 31 August 2023 and the service was visited on 16 August. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 September 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, December 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe care and better systems, but leadership stability and sustained improvement remained concerns.
This was an unannounced focused inspection in November 2020. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led because they had received concerns about safety systems and changes in managers. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and the manager, observed care, and checked records.
Safe was rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, safer medicines systems, improved risk management and good infection control. The home was clean, and staff were seen supporting people without long waits.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. A new manager had made positive changes after being in post for eight weeks, but inspectors needed more time to see whether improvements would last. Families and staff were positive about the manager but worried that managers had left frequently.
The overall rating stayed Requires Improvement. The home was no longer in breach of the regulations identified at the previous inspection, but the earlier rating for the other areas was carried forward because they were not inspected this time.
Safer medicines
Inspectors found a marked improvement in medicines administration. Records were accurate, staff were trained, and checks were in place.
“Senior staff carried out robust checks which ensured they had a good oversight of the medicines people had received.” from the report
Enough staff
Staffing levels were sufficient to keep people safe. Inspectors saw staff responding promptly and supporting people at mealtimes.
“We found there were sufficient staff on duty to keep people safe.” from the report
Infection control
The home was clean and odour free. Inspectors were assured that infection risks, including COVID-19 risks, were being managed.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Open communication
Relatives and staff described the manager as approachable and informative. Families received updates about restrictions, testing and incidents.
“Relatives were positive about how well the service had communicated during COVID-19, such as letting them know about restrictions and testing.” from the report
Improved oversight
The new manager had introduced clearer audits and actions after accidents and incidents. Inspectors saw evidence that checks were being used to improve care.
“Audits were clear and concise with actions clearly documented and signed off.” from the report
Management turnover
needs fixingThe previous registered manager had left and the new manager was still applying for registration. Families and staff were anxious about whether the new manager would stay.
“The feedback we received during our inspection combined a positive view of the new manager, with an anxiety that they would leave.” from the report
Improvements not yet proven to last
needs fixingInspectors recognised the new manager's progress but said more time was needed to show that improvements would be sustained across the home.
“However, more time was needed to be sure the provider could achieve a period of stable leadership and maintain recent improvements.” from the report
- 01Is the manager now registered with CQC, and how long do you expect them to remain at the home?
- 02What checks now show that the improvements to medicines, risk management and staffing have been maintained?
- 03How are you reducing turnover among registered managers and staff?
- 04How do you review accidents and incidents, and what changes have been made as a result?
- 05What were the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive at the last comprehensive inspection, and when will these areas next be reviewed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from previous comprehensive inspections. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 December 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 Okeley Care Home
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.