CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oswald House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found detailed risk assessments, suitable safeguarding systems and enough staff. Medicines and infection prevention were also managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this visit. Its rating was carried forward from the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers promoted a positive, person-centred culture and reviewed incidents and the quality of the service. They were updating the governance system because they felt the existing system needed updating.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and positive leadership, but this inspection only covered Safe and Well-led.
The home supports up to seven people with a learning disability. Seven people were living there when inspectors visited. The inspection was unannounced and took place on five dates between 19 June and 3 July 2023.
Inspectors spoke with three people, five relatives, managers and support workers. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management records. They also checked infection prevention and control.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. Inspectors found people were protected from harm, had enough staff, received their medicines safely and were treated with kindness and respect.
This was not a full inspection of all five areas. The ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous inspection in 2018.
Choice and independence
Staff supported people to make decisions, use their strengths and achieve their goals. People were supported to have meaningful everyday lives.
“People were supported to have maximum possible choice, control and independence.” from the report
Safe medicines
Staff were trained and assessed as competent to give medicines. Regular checks were made to keep medicine records accurate.
“People's medicines were managed in a safe manner.” from the report
Kind, individual care
Inspectors found that staff understood people's individual needs and protected their privacy and dignity. Care plans reflected people's needs and supported their wellbeing.
“People received kind and compassionate care.” from the report
Positive leadership
Managers and staff put people's wishes and needs at the centre of the service. Relatives said managers were caring and approachable.
“The registered managers promoted a positive, person-centred culture.” from the report
Capacity records being reviewed
needs fixingManagers were reviewing care records to make sure capacity assessments and best-interest records were specific to each decision and accurate.
“The registered managers were in the process of reviewing people's care records to ensure all capacity assessments and 'best interests' documents were decision specific and accurate.” from the report
Governance system being updated
needs fixingManagers were creating a more robust system for checking and improving the service because they felt the existing system needed updating.
“They were currently in the process of creating a more robust governance system, as they felt the existing one needed updating.” from the report
- 01Have all capacity assessments and best-interest records now been reviewed and corrected where needed?
- 02What changes have been made to the governance system since the inspection?
- 03How do you check that people's care plans continue to reflect their individual needs and goals?
- 04What current evidence can you provide about the Effective, Caring and Responsive areas, which were not covered in this inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous inspection in 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 July 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, June 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some records and staff supervision still being improved.
This was a comprehensive inspection carried out over three visits in April 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and other professionals. They observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were described as safe, supported by staff who knew them well, and involved in decisions about their daily lives, meals, activities and relationships.
Inspectors found detailed care plans, safe medicines support, suitable staffing and good access to health care. People were supported to be independent and to take part in activities, volunteering and community life.
Some records were difficult to follow because formats varied and information had sometimes been amended by hand. Formal supervision and appraisals were not always recorded or completed, but the managers had identified these issues and were working to improve them. The overall Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection in 2016.
Safe medicines support
Inspectors found appropriate arrangements for storing and giving medicines. People who wanted to manage their own medicines were supported to do so with checks in place.
“We found appropriate arrangements were in place for the safe administration and storage of medicines.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in everyday decisions and were supported to do things for themselves. This included shopping, cooking, friendships and relationships.
“People had choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.” from the report
Activities and community life
People chose from a range of meaningful activities, including bowling, trips, shopping, volunteering and employment-related opportunities.
“People were able to take part in a range of activities of their choosing and which were meaningful to them.” from the report
Caring relationships
Inspectors saw staff treating people with dignity and respect. The report describes a positive culture focused on people's individual needs.
“Comments from people, relatives, staff and visiting healthcare professionals indicated there was a positive, person centred culture within the service.” from the report
Care and risk records
needs fixingRisk assessments and care files did not always use the same format. Some had several handwritten amendments, which could make information harder to find and read.
“risk assessments were not in a standard format, were sometimes amended several times by hand making them more difficult to read” from the report
Supervision and appraisals
needs fixingSome staff supervision discussions were informal or not recorded, and staff appraisals had not yet taken place. Managers had started a process to record and monitor these more formally.
“Some of the discussions that took place were documented; however, both staff and the registered managers told us that meetings took place more frequently but where not always recorded.” from the report
Quality assurance updates
minorThe quality monitoring system needed minor updates. Some recommendations from earlier monitoring, including care plan updates and supervision frequency, had not been fully addressed.
“This required minor updates to ensure it covered all aspects of feedback from other agencies and was robust.” from the report
- 01How have you changed the format and organisation of care plans and risk assessments since the inspection?
- 02How do you now make sure all staff supervisions and appraisals are completed and recorded?
- 03How would you support my relative to make choices, manage medicines safely and remain as independent as possible?
- 04Which activities, volunteering or employment opportunities could be matched to my relative's interests?
- 05How do you gather and act on feedback from people, relatives and other agencies?
This was an announced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and all five ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 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 Oswald House
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 June 2011.
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
47 live-in carers within about an hour of County Durham
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 £960 to £1,210 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.