CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at OSJCT Madley Park House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and risks to their safety and wellbeing were assessed and managed. Medicines, recruitment and infection control were found to be safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care was planned around people's needs and choices. Staff had induction, training and supervision, and people were supported with nutrition, healthcare and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw respectful interactions and found that people's privacy, dignity, independence and individual choices were supported.
- Responsive?
- Good
- People received personalised care and could choose whether to join activities or have support in their rooms. The home supported communication needs, relationships, visits and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a clear management structure and staff worked well as a team. Audits, feedback and reviews were used to monitor quality and make improvements.
What inspectors found, September 2021
OSJCT Madley Park House is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a recent period of staff shortages improving.
This was an unannounced inspection. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience visited, spoke with people, a relative and staff, observed care, and checked medicines, recruitment, training and safety records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse, medicines were managed safely, and risks were assessed and monitored.
People received personalised care and were involved in decisions. Staff supported people with food, drink, activities, relationships and healthcare. The home also followed infection control measures during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The home had recently been through staff shortages. Inspectors found enough staff on the day and said the situation was improving. The overall Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, published in December 2018.
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that people received medicines as prescribed and that administration was recorded accurately. Staff training and competence checks were in place.
“People received their medicines as prescribed and the service had safe medicine storage systems in place.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff knew people's individual needs and preferences. Care plans were reviewed, and people and relatives were involved in planning care.
“People received personalised care, tailored to their individual needs and preferences” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw polite, respectful interactions and found that privacy and dignity were upheld.
“We observed staff talking to people in a polite and respectful manner.” from the report
Food and support
Mealtimes were not rushed and people had a choice of food, snacks and drinks. Staff supported people to eat and drink enough.
“The dining environment was pleasant, and food was well-presented.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in activities, spend time with visitors and use technology to stay in contact during lockdown. Staff respected people's choices if they did not want to join activities.
“People had access to a programme of activities which were overseen by staff.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The management team used audits, surveys and feedback to monitor the service and identify improvements. Staff were described as working effectively together.
“The staff team assessed the quality and safety of the service through the providers monitoring and audits systems.” from the report
Recent staff shortages
minorThe home had been recovering from a period of staff shortages. Inspectors found enough staff on the day, but said staff were busy and some people had noticed shortages and agency staff.
“The registered manager and staff told us they were recovering from a period of staff shortages.” from the report
- 01How many permanent care staff are currently in place, and has the recent period of staff shortages fully ended?
- 02How do you make sure there are enough staff when people need help, including when staff are busy or agency staff are used?
- 03How will you support my relative's preferred activities, including activities in their room if they do not want to join group activities?
- 04What visiting arrangements and individual visiting risk assessments are currently in place?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in assessing, reviewing and changing their care plan?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and infection prevention and control; all five ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 September 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, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control measures were keeping people and staff safe.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 20 January 2021. It checked the home's infection prevention and control arrangements during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found good measures for visitors, including handwashing, temperature checks and lateral flow testing. They also found regular infection control audits, staff checks on using protective equipment, and enough protective equipment.
The home was rated 'Inspected but not rated'. This visit did not give an overall quality rating or a full rating for care.
Visitor safety
Visitors had access to handwashing and were checked before entering. They also completed a lateral flow test.
“All visitors had their temperature taken and completed a lateral flow test for COVID-19.” from the report
Infection control checks
The home had an infection prevention and control lead who carried out regular audits. Staff were also checked on protective equipment and infection control procedures.
“There was an infection prevention and control lead in the service who completed regular audits to ensure all guidance was being followed.” from the report
Protective equipment
Inspectors found that the home had enough protective equipment for staff to follow current guidance.
“The provider ensured an adequate supply of PPE to enable staff to follow current guidance to reduce the risk of infection.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01Are visitors still asked to wash their hands, have their temperature taken and complete a lateral flow test?
- 02How often are infection prevention and control audits now completed, and can families see the results?
- 03How do you check that staff are using protective equipment correctly?
- 04How are residents and staff tested, and what happens if there is a suspected outbreak?
- 05What are the home's current ratings for caring, effective care, responsiveness and leadership?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices, so it did not provide a full rating of the home's other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 February 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.
Every inspection of OSJCT Madley Park House
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 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.