CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at OSJCT Meadowcroft
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and risks were assessed with plans to manage them. Medicines, recruitment checks, infection control and incident reporting were found to be satisfactory, although some relatives questioned staffing levels at weekends.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before they moved in and staff had the training and support needed for their work. People received food, drink and healthcare support to meet their needs, but inspectors found a weaker dining experience in two smaller dining rooms.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and compassionate. Inspectors saw people treated with dignity and privacy, and involved in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, preferences and routines, and complaints were investigated. Activities were limited and were not always tailored to individual interests, while some people's personal histories were not fully recorded in their care plans.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team promoted an open, person-centred culture. Audits, meetings and feedback systems were used to monitor the service and plan improvements.
What inspectors found, June 2018
OSJCT Meadowcroft is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care, but activities were not always tailored to people's interests.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 2 May 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals. They also observed care and meals, and checked care records, medicines, staff files, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were generally safe, medicines were managed properly, staff had suitable training, and there were enough staff to meet people's needs.
People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Care was planned around people's needs and choices. However, inspectors found that activities were limited and were not always based on individual interests. Some smaller dining rooms also did not offer the same choice and interaction as the main dining room.
People felt safe
People and relatives generally said they felt safe and trusted the staff. Risks were assessed and plans were in place to support independence while reducing danger.
“People continued to be safe in the service.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm interactions and found that staff protected people's privacy and dignity during personal care.
“We saw good interactions between people and care staff in the home.” from the report
Trained staff
Staff received induction, ongoing training and appraisals. Inspectors found they had the skills and knowledge needed to support people.
“Staff told us the training and support they received had given them the skills, knowledge and confidence they needed” from the report
End of life support
The home recorded people's end of life wishes and supported relatives to stay when someone was dying. Inspectors also saw positive feedback about this care.
“The registered manager and staff understood the importance of supporting people to have good end of life care.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff were asked for their views. The home had audits and action plans to monitor and improve its service.
“There were effective systems in place to continually assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service.” from the report
Activities were not individual enough
needs fixingThe activity programme did not consistently reflect people's interests. Inspectors saw no one-to-one activities outside care tasks, and activities were not always recorded.
“The quality and range of activities was limited and we saw no evidence of tailoring to individual interests” from the report
Uneven dining experience
needs fixingIn two smaller dining rooms, people were not always shown meal choices or given explanations about the food. There was also less conversation and interaction during the meal observed in the dementia unit.
“People were not shown meal choices or explanations about what the food was.” from the report
Personal histories not complete
minorNot everyone had a completed life story booklet. This meant some care plans did not contain enough information about people's social needs, interests and background.
“this meant some people had limited information about their social care needs in their care plans.” from the report
Weekend staffing concerns
minorSome relatives did not think there were always enough staff on duty at weekends. The manager said staffing levels did not change, and introduced a system to show when staff were in people's rooms.
“However, some relatives told us they did not feel there always enough staff on duty at the weekend.” from the report
- 01How have you improved the range of activities, and how do you match them to each person's interests?
- 02How do you make sure people in the smaller dining rooms are shown meal choices and receive enough conversation and support?
- 03How do you check that weekend staffing is enough, and how can relatives see where care staff are?
- 04How do you collect and record each person's life story, preferences and social needs in their care plan?
- 05How are people's end of life wishes recorded and shared with the staff team?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five ratings; the report says the Good rating remained unchanged from April 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 June 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 Meadowcroft
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 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.