CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at OSJCT Chilterns Court Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with some concerns about food and temporary care plans.
Inspectors visited on 23 and 24 April 2019. They looked at 11 care records, staff files and management records. They spoke with people living there, relatives, visitors, staff and health professionals, and observed care.
The home was providing personal and nursing care for 59 older people. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly and supported in a personalised way. Staff were described as skilled, caring and well supported. Staffing levels had improved and the use of agency staff had reduced.
There were some areas to improve. People had mixed views about the food. Care plans for people staying temporarily or in intermediate care were not always up to date or personalised, although the manager took immediate action during the inspection. The overall rating and all five question ratings were Good.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff said staffing had improved and agency use had decreased.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives praised staff for being kind, compassionate and attentive. Inspectors saw friendly interactions and support that protected privacy and dignity.
“People were extremely complimentary about the caring approach of staff.” from the report
Strong leadership
The manager had made improvements that supported better care, improved staff morale and increased consistency. Staff said they felt listened to and supported.
“The registered manager had made improvements to the service which had resulted in high quality care delivered by a positive and committed staff team.” from the report
Good links with health professionals
The home referred people appropriately and worked with health and social care professionals to respond to changes in people's condition.
“Records showed that people were referred to health and social care professionals when their condition indicated a change.” from the report
Food quality
needs fixingPeople had mixed views about the food. The manager knew about concerns and was recruiting additional catering staff to address them.
“People had mixed views about the food. The registered manager was aware of the concerns relating to the quality of food and was taking action to address the issues” from the report
Temporary residents' care plans
needs fixingCare plans for people staying temporarily or in intermediate care were not always up to date or personalised. The manager took immediate action to update them.
“Care plans for people who were staying temporarily in the service were not always up to date and were not always person-centred.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to improve the quality and choice of food since the inspection?
- 02How do you make sure care plans for people staying temporarily or in intermediate care are personalised and kept up to date?
- 03How will you involve my relative in decisions about their care and daily routine?
- 04What staffing levels do you currently have, and how often do you use agency staff?
- 05How are my relative's dietary needs, including any swallowing or weight-loss risks, assessed and reviewed?
This was a planned inspection of the overall service, including personal and nursing care, accommodation and all five quality areas. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 May 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.
What inspectors found, May 2018
OSJCT Chilterns Court Care Centre was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, effective and caring support, but care records and quality checks still needed work.
Inspectors visited without warning on 20 March 2018. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, complaints, audits and other records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Caring. People were protected from risks, received their medicines as prescribed, and were supported by trained staff. Inspectors also saw kind and respectful care, support with independence, activities and access to health professionals.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Responsive and Well-led. Care plans were not always updated when people's needs changed. Two malnutrition risk records were calculated incorrectly, and quality checks did not always make sure identified problems were fixed.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. The report says improvements had been made since the previous inspection in January 2017, but further improvements were still needed.
People were kept safe
Risks were assessed and managed. Staff understood safeguarding procedures, medicines were recorded accurately and the environment and equipment were clean.
“Risks to people were assessed and risk management plans were in place to keep people safe.” from the report
Skilled staff
Staff received induction, mandatory training and regular support. Inspectors found they had the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs.
“People received effective care from staff who were knowledgeable, skilled, confident and well trained in their practice.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff offering choices, using people's preferred names and protecting privacy and dignity.
“Throughout our inspection, we observed many caring interactions between staff and the people they were supporting.” from the report
Activities and social contact
People could join group or individual activities, spend time in the gardens and receive one-to-one support to reduce social isolation.
“People had access to an activities programme which included a range of group or individual activities.” from the report
Malnutrition risks were not always recorded correctly
seriousTwo records gave a lower malnutrition risk than the calculation showed. The report said this meant people's nutritional needs might not be managed effectively.
“We found two records where the MUST tool had been calculated wrongly therefore identifying the risk of malnutrition lower than what it actually was.” from the report
Dietary information was inconsistent
needs fixingOne person's records gave different information about whether they needed a low-fat or normal diet. The person said their fat-free diet was not being provided.
“This person's dietary advice form with the chef indicated they were on a normal diet.” from the report
Quality checks did not always lead to action
needs fixingAudits identified problems, but some action plans were not completed on time or did not clearly state when issues would be fixed.
“There was no clear process of following up on action plans to ensure they were completed.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure each person's care plan is updated immediately when their needs change?
- 02How are malnutrition risk scores calculated and checked now?
- 03How would you make sure a person's dietary instructions are the same in their care records and in the kitchen?
- 04Which actions from the previous inspection and this inspection have been completed, and how can I see the evidence?
- 05How do you respond when staff say they are stretched or do not have enough time to spend with residents?
This was an unannounced inspection of the whole home, covering all five questions and both the accommodation and care provided; the previous inspection had found a breach relating to records and governance. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 May 2018 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 OSJCT Chilterns Court Care Centre
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at OSJCT Chilterns Court Care Centre →
- May 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at OSJCT Chilterns Court Care Centre →
- March 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 December 2016.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Oxfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 32 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We can all fully relax around Nyarai and she feels like part of our family, which is no mean feat!”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.