CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Oxford House Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- This targeted inspection looked mainly at infection prevention and control. Inspectors were assured that infection risks were being managed, including PPE, testing, visiting and admissions.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Oxford House Residential Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 9 February 2022. Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control, and asked about staffing pressures linked to COVID-19.
Inspectors found good practice. They were assured that the home used personal protective equipment safely, supported testing, managed visiting and admissions safely, and kept its infection control policy up to date.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give a full rating of the care provided or of all five areas of quality.
Infection control
Staff followed government guidance and infection control practice consistently. Inspectors were assured that the home could prevent and manage infection outbreaks.
“Staff had been vigilant and consistent in following government guidance and good practice in relation to infection prevention and control. (IPC)” from the report
Cleaning
The home cleaned regularly and sanitised areas that people often touched. It also used an ozone machine to help sanitise whole rooms.
“The home was cleaned and touchpoints sanitised regularly.” from the report
Communication
The provider kept staff and the registered manager updated about changes to pandemic guidance. Inspectors said this helped staff stay up to date and reduce risks.
“The provider had regularly communicated with the staff team and registered manager about changes in government guidance in relation to the pandemic.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing staffing pressures linked to illness or COVID-19, and what measures are in place?
- 02How do you currently prevent and manage infection outbreaks?
- 03How are visitors currently supported, and what infection control arrangements apply when they visit?
- 04How do you make sure staff use PPE safely and complete the required testing?
- 05Is the infection prevention and control policy still up to date, and when was it last reviewed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 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, April 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with some planned improvements to staffing checks, medicine competency records and learning from incidents.
This was an unannounced scheduled inspection on 4 April 2019. Two inspectors spoke with five people using the home, one professional and six staff. They looked at care records, staff files, management records and parts of the building.
The inspectors found that people were safe, treated with dignity and supported to make choices. Medicines were managed safely. Staff had training, meals were seen to be a positive experience, and people had access to activities and healthcare support.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as the previous inspection on 21 October 2016. The report says legal requirements were met.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and knew how to raise concerns. Staff had safeguarding training and knew what to do if abuse was suspected.
“People were safe and protected from avoidable harm. Legal requirements were met.” from the report
Dignity and respect
Staff were seen treating people kindly and respecting their privacy. People's individual needs, likes and wishes were recorded.
“We observed staff consistently treated people with respect, ensuring care was delivered in the privacy of people's bedrooms or bathrooms.” from the report
Activities and choice
People had access to activities in the home and the wider community. Inspectors saw children from a local nursery taking part in games and activities with residents.
“People had access to a range of activities at the service and in the wider community.” from the report
Positive leadership
Inspectors received positive feedback about the senior team and found that management understood how the home operated. Audits and monitoring were in place.
“The service was consistently managed and well-led.” from the report
Staffing checks were still being developed
minorThe manager planned to introduce a dependency assessment tool to confirm the staffing numbers needed for people's needs. Inspectors did not receive concerns about staffing during this inspection.
“The registered manager told us they were planning to introduce a dependency assessment tool to confirm the staffing numbers required to meet people's needs.” from the report
Medicine competency checks
minorMedicines were observed being given safely, but the manager planned to review the competency assessment content to make sure it covered staff knowledge and skills.
“The registered manager confirmed they would review the content in the competency assessments to ensure it contained information in relation to the knowledge and skills of the staff team.” from the report
Recording lessons from incidents
minorAccidents and incidents were audited. The manager said that, where needed, lessons learned would be documented so improvements could be shared with staff.
“The registered manager confirmed they would ensure, where required, lessons learned would be documented.” from the report
- 01Has the dependency assessment tool been introduced, and how do you use it to decide whether staffing levels meet residents' needs?
- 02Has the review of medicine competency assessments been completed, and what knowledge and skills must staff demonstrate?
- 03How do you record lessons learned after accidents and incidents, and how are these shared with staff?
- 04How are you checking that the new electronic care planning system accurately reflects people's current needs and choices?
- 05Have advocacy details been placed in residents' bedrooms, as planned?
This was an unannounced scheduled inspection covering all five CQC questions, the premises and the care provided; the previous overall rating was Good on 21 October 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 April 2019 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 Oxford House Residential Home
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Oxford House Residential Home →
- April 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Oxford House Residential Home →
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 January 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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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 £1,260 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.