CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at OSJCT Langford View
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors checked staffing, falls, medicines and infection control. They found enough staff, appropriate falls plans, safe medicines practice and a clean home, although some areas could have had more hand-gel dispensers.
- Effective?
- Good
- Inspectors checked weight-loss management and activities. Nutrition risks were monitored and professional advice was sought, but opportunities for trips out were limited.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed at this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed at this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff described the home as well managed and communication as effective. Audits covered care, medicines, health and safety and records, and were used to make improvements.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Inspected but not rated; the targeted visit found safe care and good management, but activities and some infection-control arrangements needed attention.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 15 June 2021. Inspectors followed up concerns about staffing, falls, medicines, weight loss, cleanliness, activities, communication and management. They visited the home, spoke with people, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional, and reviewed care records and other documents.
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, with call bells answered promptly. Falls and weight-loss risks were assessed and managed. Medicines were given and recorded safely. The home was clean, and staff were using protective equipment and following infection-control guidance.
People had access to some activities, but opportunities for trips out were limited. Inspectors found the home was well managed, communication was effective and quality checks were used to drive improvement.
The service was inspected but not rated because this visit looked only at specific concerns. The overall rating remained Good from the previous comprehensive inspection published on 9 May 2018.
Staffing and falls safety
Inspectors found enough staff during the visit, prompt responses to call bells and suitable plans for people at risk of falls. Equipment such as sensor mats was used where needed.
“Records showed where people had been identified as at risk of falls, risk assessments had been completed and there were risk management plans in place.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff gave medicines in line with prescriptions. Records were accurate, and staff training and competence were checked.
“We observed staff administering medicines to people in line with their prescriptions. There was accurate recording of the administration of medicines.” from the report
Nutrition support
People at risk of weight loss had care plans, monthly weight checks and timely dietetic support. Some people had maintained or gained weight.
“People's weight was monitored monthly and nutritional support sought from dieticians in a timely manner.” from the report
Management and communication
People, relatives and staff said the home was well managed and communication was effective. The home used audits to check quality and safety.
“The staff team assessed the quality and safety of the service through audits.” from the report
Limited trips and activities
needs fixingPeople had some individual and group activities, but inspectors found that opportunities for day trips could be better. The manager said this would be reviewed.
“On the day of the inspection we found people had access to some activities, however, opportunities for day out visits could be improved.” from the report
Hand-gel availability
minorThe home was clean and infection-control practice was generally satisfactory, but some areas would have benefited from hand-gel dispensers.
“There were some areas of the home which could benefit from hand gel dispensers.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to increase trips out and other activities since the inspection?
- 02How do you cover shifts when staff call in sick at short notice?
- 03Which areas now have hand-gel dispensers, and how do you check that they remain available?
- 04How will you monitor whether people continue to maintain or gain weight when they are at risk of weight loss?
- 05When will the full comprehensive inspection review the caring and responsive questions?
This was a targeted inspection of specific concerns within Safe, Effective and Well-led; it did not assess the full five key questions, and the previous Good ratings were not changed. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 July 2021 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
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with earlier medicines-record problems improved.
This was an unannounced inspection on 13 February 2018. The inspector and specialist advisers spoke with people, relatives, nurses, care staff and managers. They reviewed care records, staff files, medicines records and other management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and that staff were kind, respectful and helpful. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable training, good access to health professionals and care plans that reflected people's needs and preferences.
At the previous inspection, medicines administration records were not always accurate and this was a breach of Regulation 17. At this inspection, the records showed when medicines had been given and medicines were managed safely. The report says there was no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
Safer medicines management
The earlier problem with medicines administration records had been improved. Inspectors found that medicines were given as prescribed and records were accurate during this inspection.
“At this inspection we found there was accurate recording of the administration of medicines.” from the report
Enough staff
People, relatives and staff said there were enough staff. Inspectors observed staff responding promptly and confirmed this against staffing rotas.
“We observed, and staffing rotas confirmed, there were sufficient staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff understood people's individual needs and supported their independence.
“People were treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records included people's personal histories, preferences and diverse needs. Staff knew this information and used it to guide care.
“People's care records contained details of people's personal histories, likes, dislikes and preferences.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you currently check that medicines administration records are complete and accurate?
- 02How do you decide whether there are enough staff for residents' changing needs, including at busy times?
- 03How are care plans reviewed when a person's health, mobility, communication or preferences change?
- 04How quickly can residents see a GP or other health professional when their condition changes?
- 05How would you record and respect my relative's wishes about end-of-life care and funeral arrangements?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating; the report used a shorter format because the previous overall rating had not changed. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 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 Langford View
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not ratedEffective: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 May 2012.
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.