CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Oaks
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2022
The Oaks was inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control arrangements but some areas needed deep cleaning and maintenance.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 15 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Inspectors found clear cleaning records, including four-hourly cleaning of frequently touched areas. Staff had infection control training, visitor entry checks were in place, and people were supported to access the community and day services safely.
Some carpets and hard floors needed deep cleaning. Inspectors also found damaged wood finishes and unsealed flooring, which made it harder to keep the building very hygienic. The home was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Cleaning records
The home kept clear records of cleaning, including regular cleaning of frequently touched areas.
“The provider had clear records of cleaning including four hourly sanitising of all frequent touch areas.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had infection prevention and control training and understood why the precautions were needed.
“Staff had been trained in infection prevention and control, IPC, and understood why they were taking the actions required to protect people.” from the report
Visitor checks
The home had entry procedures for visitors and staff, including checking lateral flow tests and health information.
“There were clear entry procedures for visitors and staff told us they had refused admission to people who had not provided a clear lateral flow device test” from the report
Community access
People continued to be supported to use community facilities and day services, with testing before and after trips.
“People were supported to access the community and day service.” from the report
Deep cleaning needed
needs fixingSome carpets and hard floors needed deep cleaning. This could make it harder to maintain a hygienic environment.
“The premises were cleaned as well as was possible however there was a need for some areas such as carpets and hard floors to be deep cleaned.” from the report
Wear and tear
needs fixingDamaged wood finishes and unsealed flooring made the premises harder to keep hygienic.
“There were also maintenance concerns such as damaged wood finishes and unsealed flooring that made maintaining a very hygienic environment difficult” from the report
- 01Have the carpets and hard floors now been deep cleaned, and how often will this be repeated?
- 02What work has been done to repair the damaged wood finishes and unsealed flooring?
- 03How do you check that the home remains hygienic while these maintenance issues are being addressed?
- 04What arrangements are in place if staff absence creates COVID-19-related staffing pressures?
- 05How do visiting professionals and emergency visitors access the home safely?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and staffing pressures; the service was inspected but not rated and the other key questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 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, June 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, person-centred care, but the effective rating was Requires Improvement because some records and the environment needed attention.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 1 and 2 May 2019. They observed care, spoke with people and staff, contacted health and social care professionals, and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
People were treated with warmth, kindness and respect. Staff supported choice, independence, communication, activities and access to healthcare. Medicines were managed safely, staffing and recruitment were suitable, and the home was clean.
The effective rating was Requires Improvement. Best-interests meetings had not been completed for all people identified as lacking capacity. There were also delays with maintenance, inconsistent staff supervision and gaps in some care records.
The overall rating was Good, as were Safe, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home was rated Good at the previous inspection, published in December 2016.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm, patient and caring interactions. Staff knew people well and promoted their dignity and independence.
“We saw a warm and caring approach by staff with positive and kind interactions between staff and people.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, ordered and disposed of safely. Staff were trained and assessed as competent.
“People received their medicines safely and the staff carried out regular audits to ensure all medicines had been administered correctly.” from the report
Personalised activities and care
Care plans recorded people's preferences and backgrounds, and people had access to a broad range of individual and group activities.
“People were supported to do activities of their choice and had access to a range of activities including arts and crafts, puzzles, gardening, trampolining, drumming, music, massage, shopping, swimming, cinema, theatre and bowling.” from the report
Best-interests records
needs fixingMental capacity assessments had been completed, but only one best-interests meeting had taken place despite other assessments showing people lacked capacity. The manager said plans were in place to address this.
“However, only one best interests meeting had taken place despite the assessments identifying people lacked capacity.” from the report
Maintenance delays
needs fixingSome required maintenance was delayed and other environmental actions were still outstanding. The provider started addressing some issues during the inspection.
“We found that there was a delay to the completion of required maintenance and there were outstanding actions that when completed would enhance the environment.” from the report
Manual-handling information
needs fixingElectronic care plans and risk assessments did not contain enough detail for safe manual handling. Paper copies were available and staff were told to use them until the electronic system was updated.
“Care plans and risk assessments relating specifically to manual handling on the electronic system did not contain sufficient detail to enable staff to carry out the support safely.” from the report
Learning from incidents
minorThe provider investigated accidents and incidents, but it was not clear how learning was shared with staff. CQC recommended improving the recording of shared learning.
“However, the sharing of this learning was not clear.” from the report
Staff meeting actions
minorStaff meetings took place, but there was no evidence that agreed actions were reviewed and completed. The manager said a new process would be introduced.
“However, there was no evidence that actions from meetings were reviewed and actioned.” from the report
- 01Have all the outstanding best-interests meetings now taken place, and are the decisions recorded for each person?
- 02Has the maintenance work and the work to improve the external storage area been completed?
- 03Have the electronic manual-handling care plans and risk assessments been updated with enough detail?
- 04How are learning from accidents and incidents now shared with staff?
- 05How are actions from staff meetings recorded, checked and completed?
This was an unannounced scheduled inspection of the care, premises and management of the home, covering all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 June 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 The Oaks
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 31 December 2010.
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.