CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Quarry Oaks Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- The person felt safe. Inspectors found that safeguarding, risk management, medicines, infection control and emergency arrangements were appropriate.
- Effective?
- Good
- The provider and staff member had completed relevant core training. The person's health, nutrition, hydration, rights and access to healthcare were supported.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors observed kind and positive interactions. The person's privacy, dignity, independence, interests and choices were respected.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support was highly personalised and matched the person's needs. The person was supported to maintain family relationships and take part in activities that mattered to them.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider had positive, trusting relationships with the person and understood their legal responsibilities. Quality checks were mainly informal and based on close day-to-day contact.
What inspectors found, November 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with fire training updates still to be organised.
Inspectors visited on 11 October 2018 after giving 48 hours' notice. One person was living at the home, which is registered for up to two younger adults with a mental health condition. The inspector spoke with the person, the provider and a staff member, and reviewed care and management records.
The person said they felt safe and were happy with the care. Inspectors found that risks, medicines, food, health appointments and emergencies were managed safely. The person could make choices, leave the home independently and manage their own medicines.
Inspectors saw kind and respectful relationships. Care was personalised, and the person was supported with family contact, church, voluntary work and other activities. The home had a positive atmosphere and the person was involved in decisions about their support.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. A training shortfall found at the October 2017 inspection had been addressed. The provider still needed to organise fire awareness training updates.
Kind, respectful relationships
The person was treated as part of the provider's family and inspectors saw caring, positive interactions. The person said they were happy living at the home.
“The person was at the heart of the service and was treated as a member of the provider's family.” from the report
Personalised support
The provider understood the person's needs and supported their routines, interests, family links, community activities and independence.
“The person received highly personalised care and support that met their individual needs.” from the report
Safety and medicines
Risks were reviewed and managed. The person was supported to manage their own medicines safely, with arrangements for monitoring supplies and regular reviews.
“Safe systems were in operation to support the person to manage their own medicines.” from the report
Choice and independence
The person could choose how to spend their time, use the home's shared areas, come and go freely and make many everyday decisions independently.
“The person was involved in planning the care and support they received, was supported to make choices about how they lived their life, what they did and where they spent their time.” from the report
Fire training updates
minorThe provider knew that fire awareness training updates needed to be organised. The report does not confirm that these updates had been completed at the inspection.
“The provider was aware of how to access additional training and that they needed to organise fire awareness training updates.” from the report
- 01Has the fire awareness training update mentioned in the report now been completed?
- 02How are staff supported, supervised and kept up to date when there are no formal appraisal or supervision systems?
- 03How would you respond if the person's mental health or support needs changed and the home could no longer meet them?
- 04How do you continue to check that self-managed medicines are being taken safely and reviewed when needed?
- 05How would a resident or family member raise a concern if informal discussions did not resolve it?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, with one inspector speaking to the person, the provider and a staff member and reviewing care and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 November 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.
What inspectors found, October 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but essential training and some safety records were not up to date.
The inspection took place on 2 October 2017. One inspector gave 48 hours' notice, spoke with the person living there, the provider and the staff member, and checked care plans, records and interactions.
The person felt safe and received kind, individual support. Inspectors found that risks, medicines, healthcare, food, choices, privacy and independence were managed well. The person was happy with the home and did not want to move.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Caring and Responsive. It Requires Improvement for Effective and Well-led because essential update training had not been completed and some records, including monthly fire equipment checks, had not been kept. The overall rating was Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw caring relationships and found that the person was treated with kindness, compassion, privacy and dignity.
“The person was treated with kindness and compassion. Their independence was promoted.” from the report
Personalised support
The person's support reflected their individual needs, routines, interests and choices.
“The person received a highly personalised care and support that met their individual needs.” from the report
Safe daily support
Risks were reviewed, medicines were managed safely and the person could access healthcare support when needed.
“Risks to the person's health and well-being were assessed, monitored and managed appropriately.” from the report
Some safety checks were not recorded
needs fixingThe provider said fire detection equipment was checked monthly, but there was no record of these checks. A fire safety risk assessment was also due to be reassessed.
“We were told fire detection equipment was checked each month although this had not been recorded.” from the report
- 01Has all essential update training been completed, including fire awareness, first aid and food hygiene?
- 02How are monthly fire detection equipment checks recorded and reviewed now?
- 03Has the fire safety risk assessment been reassessed by a suitably qualified person?
- 04How do you check that the person's care plan and risk assessments remain up to date?
- 05What arrangements are in place if the person's mental health or support needs change?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, with records, care plans, staff and the person living at the home reviewed; the previous inspection in September 2015 had found no concerns. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 October 2017 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 Quarry Oaks Care Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- November 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 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
84 live-in carers within about two hours of Isle of Wight
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 £1,010 to £1,230 a week. 68 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
“He stayed with her throughout the pandemic, refusing to visit his own family, who lived nearby, to reduce the risk of infection.”
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.