CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Oulton Park Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found better risk assessments and care plans, safe medicines management, enough staff, and effective infection prevention measures. The home was no longer in breach of Regulation 12 or Regulation 18.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not rated in this report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not rated in this report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Inspectors found more meaningful activities, improved communication guidance, more personalised care plans and suitable end of life planning. Complaints examined had been investigated and acted on.
- Well-led?
- Good
- A new management team had improved oversight, audits and the service's response to shortfalls. Inspectors found a more positive culture and an action plan for further improvement.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Oulton Park Care Centre is rated Good; after a previous Inadequate rating and special measures, inspectors found major improvements in safety, staffing and management.
This was an unannounced inspection on 20 January 2022. Two inspectors and an Expert by Experience visited. They spoke with three relatives and nine staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staffing and management records. People using the service were invited to speak but chose not to.
Inspectors found the home was safe, responsive and well-led. Risks were assessed more fully, medicines were managed safely, infection control measures were in place, and staffing had improved. People had more activities, better personalised care plans and more time with staff.
The home had been rated Inadequate at the previous inspection and had been in Special Measures. Inspectors found it was no longer in breach of regulations, was no longer rated Inadequate, and had left Special Measures. Effective and Caring were not rated in this report.
Better risk management
Care planning and risk management had improved significantly. Staff had clearer information about how to reduce risks and respond to incidents.
“Significant improvements had been made to how risks were identified, planned for and mitigated.” from the report
Staffing levels
Inspectors saw enough staff to respond when people needed help. Staff had more time for meaningful interactions and support at mealtimes.
“At this inspection we observed there were enough staff to provide people with care at the time they needed it and to protect them from harm.” from the report
Stronger management
The new management team had introduced better checks and acted on shortfalls. Staff morale and confidence in management had also improved.
“The new management team had driven forward significant improvements which meant that people experienced a better standard of care and lived more fulfilled lives.” from the report
More personalised support
Care plans included people's interests, preferences and communication needs. Inspectors saw staff offering choices in ways people could understand.
“Care plans had been developed to include more about peoples likes, dislikes, hobbies and interests and reflected people's individuality.” from the report
Infection prevention approach
minorInspectors were assured that infection control arrangements were in place, but they signposted the provider to resources to develop its approach further.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01How have you maintained the improved staffing levels, especially at busy times and during meals?
- 02What parts of the action plan and refurbishment programme are still outstanding?
- 03How are incidents and accidents reviewed now, and how do you check that lessons have been acted on?
- 04What further changes have you made to your infection prevention and control approach?
- 05How do you make sure activities and care plans continue to reflect each person's interests, communication needs and preferences?
This was a focused re-inspection after an Inadequate rating; Safe, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good, while Effective and Caring were not rated in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 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, August 2021
Oulton Park Care Centre was rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious risks, understaffing and weak management.
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection on 30 June 2021. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and management records, and checked infection control.
Inspectors found that people were not always protected from harm. Risk assessments and care plans were sometimes unclear or not followed. Staffing levels meant people sometimes waited for help, lacked drinks or were left without enough supervision.
People had too few activities and were at risk of social isolation. Some relatives found it difficult to contact the home or complain. Management had been inconsistent, and audits had not led to timely improvements.
The overall rating was Inadequate. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were also rated Inadequate. Medicines management and infection control had improved, but the home had deteriorated from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection and was placed in special measures.
Medicines improved
Inspectors found that medicines were being managed and given safely at this inspection. Records and medicine stocks matched, including for time-sensitive medicines.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control procedures were being used effectively, including for visitors, testing and possible outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Kind care staff
Inspectors recorded positive comments about care staff. They said staff were kind and knew people well, although staffing pressures limited the time available for care.
“Whilst staff were kind, caring and knew people well, they were not supported by the provider to have enough time to care for people” from the report
End of life planning
End of life plans recorded people's preferences and wishes. The home also had links with healthcare professionals to support people at the end of their life.
“End of life care planning was in place which made clear people's preferences and wishes at the end of their life.” from the report
People were exposed to avoidable risks
seriousPeople were sometimes left together without supervision despite previous injuries. Inspectors also found choking and strangulation risks that care plans did not properly manage.
“People were not always protected from the risk of injury caused by other service users.” from the report
Not enough staff
seriousPeople, relatives and staff reported long waits for help. Inspectors saw people left without enough supervision, support or drinks, and staff described staffing levels as unsafe.
“There were not sufficient numbers of staff deployed to support people at the time they required it” from the report
Too little meaningful activity
needs fixingPeople were often disengaged and left alone. The loss of an activities coordinator had not been properly covered, leaving people at risk of boredom and social isolation.
“The lack of activities make you feel isolated” from the report
Care was not consistently person-centred
seriousPeople and relatives said they had not been involved in care planning. Staff interactions were mainly task-focused, with too little time to talk or understand people's preferences.
“People we spoke with said they had not been involved in discussions about their care planning.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousThere had been repeated changes in registered manager and problems had remained unresolved despite being identified in audits and feedback. This meant the provider did not have reliable oversight of care quality.
“The management of the service had been inconsistent for some time” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to staffing levels and staff deployment since the inspection, and how do you check that people receive help without long waits?
- 02How are choking, strangulation and risks from other people now assessed, recorded and monitored?
- 03How do you ensure staff follow each person's care plan, especially where supervision or a modified diet is required?
- 04What activities and meaningful engagement are now available on each unit, including for people living with dementia?
- 05Who is currently responsible for management, complaints and quality checks, and what evidence can you show of improvement since the inspection?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection checking whether improvements had been made, including infection control; Safe, Responsive and Well-led were rated, while Effective and Caring were not separately rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 August 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 Oulton Park Care Centre
6 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2021Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- April 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 February 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.