CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Oaks Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from avoidable harm. Risks, medicines, staffing, recruitment, fire safety and infection control were managed appropriately, although inspectors observed limited meaningful engagement at times.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received appropriate healthcare, food, drink and staff support. Some consent forms were unsigned, some mental capacity assessments were not decision-specific, and staff were not always aware of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards conditions.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. People and relatives nevertheless described staff as kind and caring, and inspectors observed positive interactions.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- A new management team and stronger quality checks had driven improvements. The home had an action plan and systems to identify concerns and monitor care.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safer, kind care after major improvements, but some work remained on consent records and staff time for social interaction.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 19 April 2023 and reviewed the safe, effective and well-led areas. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health and social care professionals. They also observed care and checked records, medicines, staffing, training and management systems.
Inspectors found clear improvements since the previous inspection. People and relatives said they felt safe and were happy with the care. Staff were described as kind and caring. Risks, medicines, infection control, recruitment and care records were managed well. Healthcare professionals also reported improvements.
The home was rated Good overall, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective and Well-led. The previous inspection had rated the home Inadequate, with several legal breaches, and placed it in special measures. This inspection found no current breaches, so the home was no longer in special measures. Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, and their previous ratings were used in the overall rating.
Safer care
Inspectors found that risks to people were assessed and managed. The home had suitable arrangements for safeguarding, medicines, equipment and infection control.
“Risks to people were managed and mitigated effectively.” from the report
Kind interactions
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Inspectors saw staff treating people in a kind and caring way.
“Throughout the inspection we observed staff treating people in a kind and caring way.” from the report
Improved staffing
Recruitment checks were completed and the home had employed more regular staff, reducing its use of agency staff. People and relatives said staffing had improved.
“This meant people received care from a consistent staff team who understood people's needs, views, and wishes.” from the report
Good management oversight
The new management team had introduced an action plan and quality checks. These were used to find problems and act on them.
“Effective quality assurance systems had been developed and implemented.” from the report
Consent records
needs fixingSome consent forms were not signed, some mental capacity assessments were not specific enough to the decision, and staff were not always aware of legal safeguards conditions. Managers knew about these issues and had plans to address them.
“In some instances consent forms had not been signed by people or others legally authorised to sign on their behalf.” from the report
Time for social interaction
needs fixingHalf of the staff spoken with said there was not enough time for social support and interaction. Inspectors also saw limited meaningful engagement in communal areas.
“We witnessed limited staff interactions with people in relation to meaningful engagement.” from the report
Supervision still being established
minorRegular one-to-one supervision meetings had not yet been fully established. Staff were nevertheless positive about the support from managers.
“Although regular one to one supervision sessions between staff members and a member of the management team had not yet been fully embedded in practice” from the report
- 01How are you making sure every consent form is signed by the person or someone legally authorised to sign?
- 02How do you make sure mental capacity assessments are specific to each decision?
- 03How are staff kept aware of any Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards conditions?
- 04What changes have you made to staffing and staff deployment to provide more meaningful social interaction?
- 05How often are staff now receiving one-to-one supervision?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used in the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 May 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, May 2023
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious risks in care, safeguarding and management.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 3 November 2022 and reviewed records, staffing, training, medicines, safeguarding and how the home was managed. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional.
The home had serious shortfalls. Care plans did not always explain how to manage risks such as choking, asthma, constipation, skin damage and pressure injuries. Safeguarding concerns were not properly investigated or reported. Staff training and recruitment checks were incomplete, and records about consent and people's mental capacity were not reliable.
There were some positive findings. People said they felt safe, enjoyed the food and received help promptly. Inspectors saw kind interactions, suitable staffing levels, good infection control and a clean environment. However, the overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection to Inadequate because the weaknesses could put people at risk of avoidable harm.
The home was placed in special measures. CQC said it would keep the service under review and normally re-inspect within six months if it did not propose cancelling the provider's registration.
Kind staff interactions
Inspectors saw staff speaking to people kindly and respectfully. People and relatives were generally positive about the care and staff.
“During the inspection we observed staff were available to people and responsive to people's needs and requests for support.” from the report
Food and drink
People had choices at mealtimes and could ask for alternatives. The report says people had enough to eat and drink.
“People were supported to eat a varied and nutritious diet based on their individual preferences.” from the report
Staff available
Although views about staffing levels were mixed, inspectors saw enough staff available to respond to people promptly.
“There was a relaxed atmosphere in the home and staff had time to chat to people and support them in a calm and unhurried way.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that infection prevention measures, protective equipment and the home's infection control policy were suitable and up to date.
“The provider, management and staff adhered to the latest government guidance in relation to infection, prevention and control.” from the report
Incomplete risk information
seriousSome care plans and risk assessments did not explain the support people needed to reduce risks. One person at risk of pressure injuries was not repositioned as described by the manager.
“This meant the person was at significant risk of skin damage.” from the report
Safeguarding failures
seriousThe home did not properly investigate or report some injuries, bruising and other incidents. Staff also lacked a clear understanding of safeguarding responsibilities.
“The failure to investigate and report these incidents meant people may not have been safeguarded from potential abuse.” from the report
Consent and restrictive care
seriousMental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were missing or unclear for some care and equipment. Inspectors could not be assured that people's rights were protected.
“We could not be assured the correct MCA procedures had been followed where people may require support with personal care.” from the report
Staff training and recruitment
seriousTraining records showed gaps in essential training, including medicines, safeguarding and moving and positioning. Recruitment files did not always show that required checks had been completed.
“The provider's training records showed that staff had not received adequate training in a timely way to equip them to do their roles, safely and effectively.” from the report
Weak management checks
needs fixingAudits did not identify important problems in care records, training, safeguarding and incident management. The home also failed to notify CQC about reportable incidents.
“The provider and registered manager did not have a formal action plan to demonstrate the plans for future development and for addressing any issues.” from the report
- 01What specific risk assessments and care plans have been added for choking, asthma, pressure injuries, constipation and skin damage?
- 02How are safeguarding incidents, unexplained injuries and bruising now investigated and reported?
- 03Can you show current evidence that all staff have completed and renewed essential training, especially medicines, safeguarding, moving and positioning, infection control and the Mental Capacity Act?
- 04How do you now record mental capacity assessments, best-interest decisions and consent for personal care, bed rails and alert mats?
- 05What action has been taken in response to the warning notices and the home's special measures status?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, and the report says the overall rating used the previous ratings for questions not inspected. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 May 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.
Every inspection of The Oaks Care Home
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2023InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 December 2012.
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
26 live-in carers within about an hour of Hampshire
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. 23 can care for a couple. 14 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.