CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oldfield House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks, medicines, recruitment, building checks and infection control were managed safely, although staff deployment and some records needed attention.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report says staff knew people well and were kind, caring and considerate.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The report noted a lack of social activities and that a well-being lead was being recruited.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Leadership arrangements were inconsistent. There was no registered manager, feedback systems were ineffective, and the development plan was out of date.
What inspectors found, September 2023
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, caring support, but leadership and activities needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 14 August 2023. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They also checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse, risks were managed, medicines were given as prescribed, and infection control was effective. There were enough staff during the visit, although staff deployment and response times needed monitoring.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. There was no registered manager, feedback systems were ineffective, meetings had not taken place, and the development plan was out of date. The home remained Good overall because the other question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection.
Safe care
Inspectors found systems to protect people from abuse and manage risks. People said they felt safe.
“The provider had systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of abuse.” from the report
Medicines
Medicines were stored, given and recorded appropriately. Staff responsible for medicines had regular training and checks.
“Medication procedures in place ensured people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind staff
Staff knew people well and were described as kind, caring and considerate. Relatives were generally pleased with the care.
“People were supported by staff who knew them well. Staff were kind, caring and considerate.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home used infection control measures effectively, including safe use of protective equipment.
“We were assured the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager at the inspection. The deputy manager was covering the role but needed more support and management tools.
“At the time of our inspection there was no registered manager in post.” from the report
Weak oversight
needs fixingFeedback systems were not effective, and the home’s development plan did not reflect current improvements needed.
“Systems in place to obtain feedback about the service were ineffective.” from the report
Limited activities
minorPeople did not have enough social activities. The provider was recruiting a well-being lead to improve social stimulation.
“There was a lack of social activities for people to engage in.” from the report
Staff records
minorRecruitment checks had been completed, but employment gaps were not always clearly recorded. The provider took immediate action after inspectors raised this.
“Recruitment files did not always clearly document gaps in employment.” from the report
- 01Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and what support and management tools are in place?
- 02How quickly are staff expected to respond to the nurse call system, and how is this checked?
- 03What social activities are now available, and has the well-being lead been appointed?
- 04How are residents and relatives asked for feedback, and how are the results acted on?
- 05What progress has been made on the home’s development plan?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection published on 4 March 2020. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 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, March 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some medicines records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced planned re-inspection on 14 February 2020. One inspector spoke with people living at the home, a relative, staff, managers and a healthcare professional. Records including care plans, medicines charts, risk assessments, rotas and recruitment files were reviewed.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines procedures, good infection control, suitable training, kind care and personalised support.
There were a few areas to improve. Records showing where topical medicines and medicated patches should be applied were not always updated. Some parts of the home looked tired, and dedicated activities staff were still being recruited.
The last published rating was also Good in February 2016. An inspection in January 2018 was withdrawn because of an issue with some information gathered. This inspection was carried out as a planned re-inspection because of that issue.
Safe staffing and care
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff were not rushed and responded promptly and compassionately.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's care needs. We observed staff were not rushed and responded promptly and compassionately to people's requests for support.” from the report
Clean and well-managed environment
The home was clean, free from odours and had systems for infection control and safety checks.
“The control and prevention of infection was well managed. The premises were clean, and a team of housekeepers were employed to maintain standards.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans described people's needs, preferences and important personal information. Staff supported people to make everyday choices.
“Care plans were very person centred and detailed about each person. They contained very helpful and clear information about people.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People described staff positively, and inspectors observed support that protected dignity, privacy and comfort.
“People were happy with the staff that supported them and were treated in a kind and caring way.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingBody maps showing where topical medicines and medicated patches should be applied were not always updated. The manager said this would be addressed immediately.
“Topical medicines and medicated patches had accompanying body maps to ensure staff were aware of where these should be applied although, these records were not always updated.” from the report
Some areas looked tired
minorSome parts of the home looked worn. A programme of redecoration and renewal was planned, and dining room chairs had already been replaced before the inspection.
“Décor was to a good standard, although some areas of the home looked tired and worn.” from the report
Activities staffing
minorPeople had activities and entertainment, but these were being provided by care staff while dedicated activities staff were being recruited.
“This was currently provided by care staff as dedicated activities staff were currently being recruited.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure body maps for topical medicines and medicated patches are updated every time?
- 02What is the timetable for the planned redecoration and renewal of the areas that looked tired?
- 03Have dedicated activities staff now been recruited, and what activities are currently available?
- 04How are audits used to check medicines records and make sure identified improvements are completed?
- 05How will you involve my relative and our family in reviewing their personalised care plan?
This was an unannounced planned re-inspection covering all five CQC questions; the previous 2018 inspection report was withdrawn because of an issue with some information gathered. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 March 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 Oldfield House
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 September 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
92 live-in carers within about an hour of Doncaster
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“I can honestly say without Petros I don't believe he would have lived an extra 2 years”
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.