CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oldway Heights
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were identified and managed, medicines were generally given safely and there were enough staff. One medicines administration record was unclear, but the manager changed it immediately. Inspectors also recommended better disposal of used PPE.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training, supervision and induction. People received support with healthcare, eating and drinking, communication and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff spent time talking with people and supported them to make choices about their daily lives and care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The report does not give a separate rating or detailed findings for the Responsive question.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had visible and approachable management, updated systems and regular audits. Staff said they felt supported, and people and families were able to give feedback and raise complaints.
What inspectors found, April 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with minor issues about medicines records and used PPE disposal.
This was an unannounced inspection on 23 February 2022. Inspectors spoke with six people, eight staff and reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records. The inspection was prompted partly by concerns about communication, staff attitudes and support for distressed people.
People said they felt safe and were happy with their care. Inspectors found enough staff, caring interactions, suitable training, personalised care records, safe medicines systems and good support with healthcare, food and personal choices. The home was also found to be well managed, with approachable leaders and good communication.
The overall rating was Good, as were Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. This was an improvement from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published in September 2019. The report says the home had fixed the problems that had previously led to breaches of regulations.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and were happy with the care they received.
“People told us they were happy with the care they received and people said they felt safe living there.” from the report
Kind staff
Inspectors saw friendly, respectful interactions. Staff spent time chatting with people and knew how to offer comfort.
“Staff were caring and spent time chatting with people as they moved around the service.” from the report
Improved staff support
Staff had induction, training, supervision and competence checks. Inspectors found staff had the skills needed to support people.
“People received effective care and treatment from competent, knowledgeable and skilled staff who had the relevant qualifications and skills to meet their needs.” from the report
Personalised care
Care records included people's needs, preferences, communication methods and personal histories. People were involved in decisions and could decline parts of their planned care.
“Records of people's care were individualised and reflected each person's needs and preferences.” from the report
Active management
The management team was visible, approachable and used new care and audit systems to improve the service.
“The registered manager and provider had oversight of what was happening in the service and were both very visible and took an active role in the running of the service.” from the report
Used PPE disposal
needs fixingInspectors recommended that the home make sure all used PPE is discarded properly.
“However, we recommend that the provider ensure all used PPE is discarded appropriately.” from the report
Care records were being changed
minorThe home was moving from paper records to an electronic system. During the inspection, some information was still on paper and some was online.
“However, the service was in the process of changing from a paper care record system to a computerised care record system.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that medicines administration records are clear and complete for every person?
- 02What steps do you take to make sure used PPE is discarded appropriately?
- 03How do staff find the latest care information while records are held partly on paper and partly online?
- 04How are changes in a person's health, distress or care needs communicated to all staff?
- 05How can relatives raise concerns, and how will the home keep them informed about the response?
This was an unannounced inspection that looked at the overall quality of the home and rated Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led; the report does not give a separate Responsive rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 April 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, September 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe medicines and good personal support, but identified gaps in risk records, staff training, dignity and management checks.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 28 August 2019. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and other professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, training records, recruitment files and management records.
The home was clean and people said they felt safe. Medicines were managed safely, people received healthcare support and the service responded well to complaints, communication needs and relationships. However, some risks were not recorded, some doors containing potentially harmful products were left open, and staff training did not cover all people's needs.
Inspectors found mixed views about staff kindness and saw some poor examples of respectful language and practice. Many people sat without stimulation during the inspection. Management checks had not always found the problems. The overall rating was Requires Improvement, with the same rating for Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led. Responsive was rated Good.
Medicines
People received medicines as prescribed, and medicines were stored and disposed of safely. People managing their own medicines had lockable storage and risk assessments.
“People received their medicines as prescribed and medicines were disposed of and stored safely.” from the report
Healthcare support
Health and social care professionals were involved when needed. Staff responded to advice and followed instructions.
“People's health care was co-ordinated. External professionals, such as GPs, community nurses and the mental health team visited the service on a regular basis.” from the report
Communication and relationships
Care plans recorded people's communication needs, and staff adapted how they communicated. People were supported to maintain friendships and important relationships.
“Staff adapted their own communication styles when supporting people.” from the report
Involvement
People and families were involved in residents' meetings and the recruitment of potential staff. The culture was described as welcoming and inclusive.
“People and their families were involved in the recruitment process of potential new staff.” from the report
Incomplete risk records and unlocked doors
seriousSome risks, including behaviour, diabetes and possible skin damage, were not recorded in care plans. Doors that should have been locked were open, giving access to potentially harmful products.
“Risks associated with people's care were known, but not always documented. The environment was not always effectively monitored for its ongoing safety.” from the report
Staff training gaps
seriousTraining records showed that not all staff had training for the health and support needs of people living at the home. This included dementia, mental health, diabetes, epilepsy and nutritional needs.
“Staff did not always receive the relevant training to meet people's health and social care needs.” from the report
Dignity and respect
needs fixingPeople's views about staff kindness varied. Inspectors found examples of language and actions that did not always promote privacy, dignity and respect.
“The language used in public and private areas to describe people and their health and support needs was not always caring or respectful.” from the report
Limited stimulation
needs fixingAlthough social activities were available, many people sat for long periods without stimulation during the inspection. Some people on the upper floor said they did not always attend social occasions and felt isolated.
“However, on the day of our inspection despite an event taking place in the lounge, many people were observed to sit for long periods of the day without any stimulation.” from the report
Management checks
seriousThe home had monitoring checks, but they had not always found the problems identified in safety, training, care and activities.
“The providers overall governance framework was not always effective in identifying where improvements were required” from the report
- 01What action have you taken to make sure all risks, including diabetes, behaviour and skin damage, are recorded and followed?
- 02Which staff have completed training in dementia, mental health, diabetes, epilepsy, nutritional difficulties and behaviour that could challenge?
- 03How do you make sure doors containing potentially harmful products are kept locked?
- 04How are activities and social opportunities tailored for people on the upper floor or people who may feel isolated?
- 05What changes have been made to the governance checks so they identify problems with safety, dignity, training and care plans?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection that assessed all five CQC questions; the previous overall rating was Good in 2016, but four question ratings had deteriorated by this inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 September 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 Oldway Heights
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2019Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 September 2018.
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
21 live-in carers within about an hour of Torbay
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 £1,400 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.