CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at The Oaks Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks in medicines, infection control and management checks, although people generally felt safe and received kind care.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 21, 23 and 28 November 2022, with inspection activity ending on 14 December 2022. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked medicines, care records, staffing, training and quality checks.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Medicines were not always ordered, stored, given or recorded safely. Some people missed medicines or received time-sensitive medicines late. Inspectors also found poor cleaning in some areas and staff not always using face masks correctly.
The systems used to check quality had not found or fixed these problems. The home was also not always maintaining planned staffing levels, which reduced the time staff had to talk with people. The provider carried out a medicines audit and produced an action plan during and after the inspection.
Only Safe and Well-led were inspected in detail. Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, so their previous ratings were carried forward. The last overall rating was Good, published in January 2018.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and knew who to speak to if they had concerns.
“I like it here…I feel very safe,” from the report
Safe recruitment
The home completed identity checks and Disclosure and Barring Service checks before employing new staff.
“Staff were recruited safely. This included proof of identity and checks through the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) before employing new staff.” from the report
Kind and skilled care
Relatives described the nursing care as skilled and compassionate, and said activities staff were good.
“The fundamental nursing care, which is skilled and compassionate, and the activities coordinators are very good.” from the report
Medicines were not always safe
seriousInspectors found missed medicines, late Parkinson's medicines, out-of-date medicines being given and inaccurate records. This created a risk that people would not receive medicines as prescribed.
“Shortfalls were identified in the ordering, storing, administration and record keeping of medicines, which put some people at risk of not receiving their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousInternal and external audits had not found the medicines and infection control problems. Similar infection control shortfalls had been found previously.
“The arrangements to assess and monitor the quality of the service were not effective enough.” from the report
Staffing was inconsistent
needs fixingPeople, relatives and staff gave mixed feedback about staffing. Shortages linked to sickness reduced the time staff could spend talking with people and could affect activities and choice.
“One person told us, "Staff haven't got the time to just sit and talk.” from the report
Communication concerns
needs fixingSome relatives said communication had worsened during management and senior organisational changes. They found it difficult to get through to someone or follow up queries.
“The actual care is good, the communication is terrible.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to prevent missed, late, out-of-date or incorrectly stored medicines?
- 02How do you check that medicines records and stock counts are accurate every day?
- 03What has been done to keep sluice rooms, bathrooms and equipment clean and hygienic?
- 04How many staff are planned for each shift, and what happens when sickness leaves the home short staffed?
- 05How are relatives' concerns and follow-up queries now recorded and answered?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led following concerns about medicines and governance; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 January 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, March 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control measures, with shortfalls in cleaning some areas.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 23 February 2021. It focused on infection prevention and control because of coronavirus outbreaks in care homes. At the time, 35 people were living in the home.
Inspectors were assured about testing, visiting arrangements, personal protective equipment, social distancing, safe admissions and managing infection outbreaks. People had received their first COVID-19 vaccination, and the home worked with local infection control services.
Inspectors were only somewhat assured about the layout and hygiene of the premises. They found shortfalls in cleaning the sluice rooms and a store cupboard. These areas were decluttered and deep cleaned during the inspection, with stronger checks introduced.
The home and the Safe question were inspected but not rated. This visit does not provide an overall quality rating for the home or ratings for the other four questions.
COVID-19 testing
The home was regularly testing staff and residents, including quick tests used for visiting relatives.
“National guidance was being followed to ensure staff and people living in the service were regularly tested for COVID-19.” from the report
PPE practice
Staff had training and were following safe practices for wearing protective equipment.
“Staff had been trained and followed safe practice in the wearing of personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Visits
The home had a visiting pod and systems for indoor visits in line with the guidance described in the report.
“Booked visits were being accommodated in the 'visiting pod', and systems were in place to accommodate indoor visits, in line with government guidelines from the 8 March 2021.” from the report
Working with infection control services
The home worked with the local authority, Public Health England and the local infection control team to support its infection control practice.
“The service was working closely with the local authority, Public Health England, and the Clinical Commissioning Group (CCG) infection control team to ensure their infection control practice was safe.” from the report
Cleaning of some areas
needs fixingInspectors found shortfalls in cleaning the sluice rooms and a store cupboard. The areas were cleaned during the inspection and stronger checks were introduced.
“We found shortfalls in the cleaning of the sluice rooms and a store cupboard.” from the report
- 01How often are the sluice rooms and store cupboards now checked and cleaned?
- 02What evidence can you show that the stronger cleaning checks have been completed consistently since the inspection?
- 03How are staff and residents currently tested for COVID-19?
- 04How are visits arranged now, and what infection control rules do visitors need to follow?
- 05How do you respond if a resident with dementia becomes anxious about a visitor's mask or other protective equipment?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices; it did not rate the overall service or assess Effective, Caring, Responsive or Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 March 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 The Oaks Care Home
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Requires improvement.
- January 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- January 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016Inadequatestayed InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2016InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 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
35 live-in carers within about an hour of Essex
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. 25 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
“She brought fun and stimulation into mums life.”
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.