CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at OSJCT Longlands
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found gaps in risk assessments, repositioning records, medicines records and investigations of unexplained injuries. People said they felt safe and staff were described as kind, but the report found an increased risk of harm.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward into the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward into the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward into the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management systems had not reliably identified problems with safety, records, medicines, injuries or mental capacity decisions. People and relatives had not been asked for feedback, although staff said they felt supported.
What inspectors found, June 2023
OSJCT Longlands was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found serious gaps in risk management, medicines records and management oversight.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 11 May 2023. Inspectors looked at Safe and Well-led because concerns had been raised about staff understating people's needs. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was not always keeping people safe. Inspectors found gaps in repositioning records, incomplete or conflicting risk information, medicines records that were not always complete, and unexplained injuries that had not always been investigated. Staff had not always had the training needed to support people with epilepsy or diabetes.
Management checks had not found or corrected these problems. People and relatives had not been asked for feedback, and some had not been involved in care planning. There were also concerns about missing mental capacity assessments and some Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards referrals.
The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection in 2018 to Requires Improvement. The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. The other three areas were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were carried forward.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. People also described staff as kind.
“I am safe, and the staff are kind.” from the report
Safe recruitment
The provider carried out pre-employment checks, including references and criminal record checks.
“The provider completed pre-employment checks such as references and Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks.” from the report
Staffing levels
People, relatives and staff said there were enough staff to meet people's needs. The provider used a dependency tool to plan staffing.
“There is enough staff. If I need them, they are available to me.” from the report
Learning from falls
The home analysed accidents and incidents for patterns involving falls and shared information with staff about ways to reduce risks.
“Incidents and accidents were analysed to identify trends and patterns for falls.” from the report
Pressure damage risks
seriousRecords did not show that some people had been repositioned within the required timeframes. Inspectors found gaps of 10 hours or more for two people.
“records for 2 people who required support to reposition themselves every 2 or 4 hours to reduce the risk of pressure damage evidenced gaps of 10 hours or more.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousRecords did not consistently show that medicines had been given according to the home's policy. Yearly medicines competency checks had also not always been completed.
“Medicine management required improvement. Records were not consistently recorded to evidence staff followed the providers policy on medicine administration.” from the report
Incomplete care information
seriousCare plans and risk assessments contained conflicting or missing information. This included information about epilepsy, diabetes and how staff should respond to distressed behaviour.
“care plans held conflicting information within them, limited information recorded regarding the signs and symptoms to look for to mitigate the risks of epilepsy or diabetes” from the report
Unexplained injuries
seriousSome unexplained injuries had not been investigated. This meant the home had not identified possible causes or steps to reduce the chance of the injury happening again.
“Unexplained injuries had not been investigated to identify a potential cause.” from the report
Limited involvement in care planning
needs fixingPeople and relatives said they had not seen or been involved in care plans. This may make it harder to ensure care reflects the person's wishes and needs.
“People and relatives told us they had not seen or been part of the care planning process.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure people are repositioned on time and that the records are complete?
- 02How are medicines now checked, and have all staff completed their medicines competency assessments?
- 03How are care plans and risk assessments being checked for conflicting or missing information?
- 04How are unexplained injuries investigated and followed up?
- 05How are people and relatives now involved in care planning and asked for feedback?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the Effective, Caring and Responsive ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 June 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, December 2018
OSJCT Longlands is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care with effective management.
This was an unannounced inspection on 23 November 2018. One inspector and an Expert by Experience observed care, spoke with people and relatives, and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People said staff were kind and respectful. Inspectors found that care met people's needs, medicines were given safely, and risks were assessed and managed.
The home had 48 residents at the time of the inspection. Inspectors found a clean and well-maintained environment, suitable staffing, support with food and health care, activities, and systems for handling complaints and improving quality.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives were positive about staff's compassion, kindness and respect. Inspectors also saw considerate and dignified interactions.
“People received compassionate support from caring and committed staff.” from the report
Safe care and medicines
Risks were assessed and managed, staff understood safeguarding, and medicines were stored and given safely.
“People received their medicines safely and as prescribed.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's preferences and supported hobbies, choices, communication needs and flexible activities.
“People were supported in a way that met their needs and achieved good outcomes.” from the report
Good oversight
The registered manager used audits and learning to monitor the service and drive improvements.
“Findings from audits were analysed and actions were taken to drive continuous improvement.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you assess and manage my relative's risks, including falls, moving and handling, medicines or pressure damage?
- 02How would you support my relative's dietary preferences, special diet and hydration needs?
- 03What activities would be available that match my relative's hobbies and interests?
- 04How would you support my relative's communication needs, including hearing or sight difficulties?
- 05How would you involve our family in care planning and respond if we raised a concern?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the overall service and all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 December 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 Longlands
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- June 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
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.