CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at OSJCT Townsend House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2022
OSJCT Townsend House was rated Good overall; inspectors found safe medicines and good management, but staffing needed improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 20 January 2022. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, looked at care plans and medicines records, and checked recruitment, training, health and safety processes and infection control.
The home had enough staff to meet basic needs on the inspection day, but staff were often very busy and rushed. Inspectors saw people waiting for support, and staff said staffing levels sometimes fell below the provider's expected level. No evidence of harm was found, but the shortage increased the risk to people.
Medicines, safeguarding, infection control and risk management were mostly handled safely. The home was well-led, with clear management arrangements and systems to monitor quality. The overall Good rating remained because Safe was rated Requires Improvement while Well-led remained Good, and the other ratings were carried over from the previous inspection.
Medicines
People received their medicines as prescribed. Storage, administration and recording were checked and found to be safe.
“People received their medicines as prescribed and the service had safe medicine storage systems in place.” from the report
Infection control
The home had checks for visitors, used protective equipment correctly, carried out regular testing and had plans for managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Management
Inspectors found clear leadership, team working and systems for checking quality and sharing learning.
“There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Safeguarding
People said they felt safe. Staff understood different types of abuse and knew how to report concerns.
“Staff had a good understanding of abuse and knew what to do to make sure that people who lacked a voice were protected.” from the report
Staffing shortages
seriousStaff numbers sometimes fell below the provider's expected level. People could wait for support, and staff said they were working under pressure.
“The provider was also actively recruiting to redress the staff shortage, however, the shortages placed people at increased risk of harm.” from the report
Care records
needs fixingOne person's care plan and records were not up to date, although staff knew the person's current needs and were monitoring the risks.
“One person's care plan and records were not up to date, but staff were aware of this person's current needs and were monitoring the risks associated with their health and wellbeing.” from the report
- 01How many staff vacancies were there after the inspection, and have the expected staffing levels now been met?
- 02How long do residents currently wait for help after using their call bell?
- 03What checks ensure every person's care plan and risk records are kept up to date?
- 04What actions were included in the requested action plan, and what progress has been made?
- 05How are staff workload and overtime monitored to make sure people receive timely support?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, following concerns about staffing; the other ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 March 2022 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, January 2020
OSJCT Townsend House was rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some medicine-record improvements underway.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 09 January 2020. They spoke with 11 people, two relatives and staff, and checked care records, medicine records, staff files, complaints, incidents and quality checks.
The home was supporting 40 people aged 65 and over, including some people living with dementia. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines practice, personalised care, good support with food and health needs, and respectful relationships.
People were supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in activities that mattered to them. The manager and staff worked well together and had systems to monitor quality. One audit had found medicine-recording issues, and an action plan was being introduced.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same as the previous rating published on 26 July 2017.
Personalised care
Staff knew people's preferences and personal histories well. Inspectors saw the home make extra efforts to support individual wishes and improve people's wellbeing.
“Staff knew people extremely well which enabled them to respond to people's needs and wishes at a personal level.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People said staff were caring and helpful. Inspectors observed people being treated with dignity and supported to remain as independent as possible.
“People told us staff were caring and kind.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Records and staff feedback indicated there were enough staff with the right skills. Medicines were administered as prescribed, with staff training and competency checks.
“The provider had enough staff on duty with the right skill mix to keep people safe.” from the report
Meaningful activities
Activities were based on people's interests and backgrounds. Staff supported people to take part in important experiences outside the home as well as activities within it.
“Information on people's backgrounds was used to tailor activities to meet their interests and support their well-being.” from the report
Open management
The home had a clear leadership structure and staff reported good support and teamwork. Quality checks were used to identify areas for improvement.
“The registered manager had effective quality assurance systems in place.” from the report
Medicine records needed improvement
needs fixingAn audit identified problems with the accuracy of medicine records. The manager had created an action plan and was introducing measures to improve this.
“For example, one audit identified issues with accurate recording of medicine records.” from the report
- 01What medicine-recording issues did the audit identify, and what has changed since the inspection?
- 02How do you check that medicine records remain accurate and that staff follow the required procedures?
- 03How will you assess and support my relative's communication needs, interests and personal routines?
- 04What staffing levels are normally in place, and what happens when staff are off sick?
- 05How would you arrange end-of-life care if my relative needed it?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care provided and the premises; end-of-life care was not observed because nobody was receiving palliative or end-of-life care at the time. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 January 2020 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 Townsend House
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- March 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2015Goodup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 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.