CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at OSJCT Isis House Care & Retirement Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, staffing levels were sufficient, recruitment was safe and medicines were given as prescribed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before care began. Staff had relevant training and supported people's nutrition, healthcare needs and choices.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were caring and inspectors saw people being treated with dignity and respect. Staff knew people well and encouraged independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and communication requirements. People could take part in activities, raise complaints and receive personalised support.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a clear management structure, positive team culture and quality checks that were used to make improvements. People and staff were asked for their views.
What inspectors found, September 2019
OSJCT Isis House Care & Retirement Centre was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced inspection on 12 September 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff, managers and a healthcare professional. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, complaints, incidents and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People told inspectors they felt safe and cared for. Staff knew people well, respected their choices and supported their health, nutrition and independence.
Inspectors found enough suitably skilled staff, safe medicines arrangements and personalised care plans. The home worked with healthcare professionals and used audits and reviews to identify and address problems.
The home was also rated Good at the previous inspection in April 2017. This rating means inspectors found the service was meeting the relevant requirements and providing consistently good care at the time of this inspection.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood how to identify and report safeguarding concerns.
“People told us they felt safe receiving care from the service.” from the report
Caring staff
Staff knew people well and provided compassionate, personalised support. People were involved in decisions about their care.
“Staff's commitment and compassion enabled people to receive care from staff who knew them well.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences and communication requirements. Staff supported activities, choice and independence.
“People's care was personalised and matched their needs, which promoted their wellbeing and improved their quality of life.” from the report
Good leadership
The home had a clear management structure and staff worked well as a team. Quality checks were used to address issues and improve care.
“The provider had quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and regularly update my relative's care plan and risk assessments?
- 02How do you make sure there are enough staff with the right skills to meet my relative's needs at all times?
- 03How would you support my relative with end-of-life care if this became necessary, given that no one was receiving it during the inspection?
- 04How will you support my relative's communication needs, such as hearing or sight loss?
- 05What activities and outings would be suitable for my relative's interests and abilities?
This was an unannounced inspection that covered all five CQC questions, including care, staffing, medicines, records, complaints and management systems; no one was receiving end-of-life care during the visit. 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.
What inspectors found, April 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with effective leadership.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 6 April 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care plans, staff files, medicine records and other management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine arrangements, suitable staff training and good support from health professionals.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care was personalised and activities were available. The registered manager promoted a caring culture and used audits and checks to monitor the service.
The home was rated Good at the previous inspection and remained Good at this inspection.
Enough staff
Inspectors found sufficient staff to meet people's needs. Staff were not rushed and had time to spend talking with people.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs and staff had time to spend with people.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicine records were accurate and complete. Staff had training and regular checks of their ability to give medicines safely.
“Medicines were managed safely. Records relating to the administration of medicines were accurate and complete.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's personal histories, preferences and communication needs. Staff responded to changing needs and provided a range of activities.
“People received personalised care. This included, nutrition, moving and handling and emotional support.” from the report
Positive leadership
The registered manager promoted a caring culture and monitored the quality of the service through audits and checks.
“The registered manager promoted a caring culture that promoted person-centred care.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you make sure staffing levels remain sufficient when people's needs change or staff are absent?
- 02How will you safely manage my relative's medicines, including any medicines with specific instructions?
- 03How often will my relative's care plan and risk assessments be reviewed if their needs change?
- 04Which activities would suit my relative's interests, abilities and preferred level of social contact?
- 05How can my relative or our family raise a complaint, and how will we be told what action has been taken?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, and the report says the previous overall rating was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 April 2017 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 Isis House Care & Retirement Centre
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at OSJCT Isis House Care & Retirement Centre →
- April 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at OSJCT Isis House Care & Retirement Centre →
- March 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodResponsive: Good
- August 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 November 2010.
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.