CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Oxfield Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found detailed, individual risk assessments, enough staff and safe medicines arrangements. Incidents were recorded and investigated so that lessons could be shared.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had induction, supervision, appraisals and specialist training for complex health needs. Inspectors found that staff understood the Mental Capacity Act, although clinical staff had a stronger understanding of the processes than some other staff.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with dignity and respect and understood their individual communication methods. Inspectors observed a positive, person-centred culture.
- Responsive?
- Outstanding
- Support was tailored to individual needs and people were offered meaningful activities and community opportunities. End of life care planning and support for people and families were especially strong.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager and clinical leads had oversight of the home. Quality checks, incident learning and feedback from people and relatives were used to improve the service.
What inspectors found, February 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care and Outstanding support tailored to people’s needs, especially at the end of life.
This was an unannounced inspection in December 2018. The inspector reviewed care records, staff files, rotas, medicines, management checks and other information. They spoke with staff, relatives and health and care professionals.
The home supported people with learning disabilities, including people with complex health needs. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable training and detailed risk assessments. People were treated with dignity and respect, and relatives spoke positively about the care.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Effective, Caring and Well-led were Good. Responsive was Outstanding because support was highly personalised, people were helped to live meaningful lives, and end of life care was particularly strong. The overall rating had not changed since the previous inspection.
Personalised support
Staff took time to understand what mattered to each person. Care plans were detailed and matched the support inspectors observed.
“The support people received from staff was tailored to their individual needs and staff had worked extremely hard to get to know people and understand what was important to them.” from the report
End of life care
The home involved families early, recorded people’s wishes in accessible plans and worked with other services to help people remain at home where possible.
“The service had excelled in supporting people at the end of their lives and worked closely with the local hospice.” from the report
Respect and communication
Staff protected privacy and dignity and used tailored tools, pictures, signs and technology to help people communicate and make choices.
“Extensive communication plans and tools were in place that were bespoke and tailored to each person.” from the report
Staffing and training
Inspectors found staffing levels matched people’s needs. Staff received specialist training for complex health conditions and were supported through supervision and competency checks.
“Due to the complex health needs of people supported, additional specialist training was provided to staff.” from the report
Some building work was still pending
minorInspectors noted that some bedroom doorways needed widening and that repainting and repairs to parts of the drive were required. Plans existed, but there was no definite date for this work.
“We noted some repainting was required and some areas of the drive into the properties needed repair.” from the report
Mental capacity knowledge varied
needs fixingStaff understood the main principles, but inspectors said knowledge of the processes was stronger among clinical staff. Families should ask how decisions will be made and recorded for their relative.
“The level of knowledge did vary with clinical staff having a greater understanding of the processes involved.” from the report
- 01How will you assess and review my relative’s individual risks and support needs?
- 02Which staff have specialist training for my relative’s health conditions, and how is their competence checked?
- 03How will my relative communicate choices, complaints and end of life wishes if they cannot communicate verbally?
- 04What progress has been made with widening bedroom doorways, repainting and repairing the drive?
- 05How will you involve our family in advance care planning and decisions made under the Mental Capacity Act?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; the report says the overall rating stayed Good, while Responsive improved to Outstanding. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 February 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 Oxfield Court
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: OutstandingWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 March 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Kirklees
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. 86 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.