CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Oaks Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe and there were enough staff. Risks, medicines, infection control, recruitment and accidents were managed through systems that inspectors found safe.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's physical, mental and social needs. Staff had training and supervision, and people were supported with food, healthcare, communication and lawful decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- People said staff were kind, caring and respectful. Inspectors saw staff offering reassurance and people were involved in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and activities reflected people's interests. The home supported communication needs, community visits, relationships and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The management team had systems to monitor quality, accidents, medicines and safety. People, families and staff could give their views, and the home used these views to make changes.
What inspectors found, September 2019
The Oaks Residential Home is Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with all five areas rated Good.
This was a planned, unannounced inspection on 21 August 2019. Inspectors spoke with eight people, two relatives and eight staff. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and quality checks.
Inspectors found people were safe and received their medicines as prescribed. Staffing levels were sufficient, care plans were personal, and staff were trained. People were supported with food, healthcare, activities, relationships and daily choices.
The home was rated Good in Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means inspectors found good outcomes and care that was consistently managed. The previous inspection was also rated Good.
Person-centred support
Care was planned around people's individual needs, choices and independence. This included people living in the learning disability wing.
“People received planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that was appropriate for them and supported independence, choice and inclusion in the home and local community.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were given as prescribed and staff were trained and checked for competence. Weekly audits were used to find and manage errors.
“People received their medicines as prescribed, in a safe and timely way, from staff who were adequately trained.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff offering comfort and reassurance, and people said they were not rushed.
“People told us staff were, "Kind and caring, nothing is too much trouble for them.” from the report
Choice and activities
People had choices about food, care and daily activities. The home supported trips, hobbies, relationships and links with the local community.
“People were supported to experience new opportunities by accessing different activities.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The home used audits, meetings and incident reviews to identify actions and make improvements. People, relatives and staff had opportunities to give their views.
“Monitoring systems were in place, to monitor quality and safety of the service, including regular audits of health and safety, medicines and premises.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How often are medicines audits carried out, and what happens if an error is found?
- 02How are each person's care plans reviewed when their needs or choices change?
- 03How do you make sure there are enough trained staff on every wing, including during sickness?
- 04What activities and community trips would be available for my relative, based on their interests?
- 05How can relatives raise a concern, and how will they be told what action was taken?
This was an inspection of the care and premises, covering all five CQC questions; all five ratings were assessed and remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 September 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.
What inspectors found, February 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some improvements still needed in risk records, weighing and short-term care planning.
Inspectors visited without warning on 25 January 2017. They spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff, a health professional, the manager and others. They also checked care plans, medicines records, training files and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. People said they felt safe, received their medicines and were treated with kindness and dignity. Staff knew people's preferences and supported their health, food, activities and family relationships.
Inspectors found some small gaps. One risk assessment was not strong enough, some weekly weights had been missed, and care planning for people arriving from hospital was not always completed quickly. The manager took action or provided plans to address these points.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff understood how to recognise and report possible abuse, and there were systems for managing risks.
“People lived in a service where there were systems in place to minimise the risk of them coming to harm.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff responding patiently and reassuringly. People were treated as individuals and their privacy, dignity and preferred choices were respected.
“We observed staff were kind and patient with people and people responded positively to the staff supporting them.” from the report
Good support with health and pressure-ulcer prevention
Staff monitored health needs, sought professional help when needed and had improved their approach to preventing and managing pressure ulcers since the previous inspection.
“Following this they had implemented a new system to increase staff awareness of the risks and prevention and management of pressure ulcers.” from the report
Personalised care planning
Care plans included people's preferences, history and support needs. A short care-plan summary helped staff quickly understand how to support each person.
“Care plans were written in a person centred way, giving detail about individual needs and preferences and tailored to the individual they were written for.” from the report
Activities and family contact
People could take part in activities, follow interests and make suggestions about menus and activities. Families were welcomed and invited to shared events.
“The management team and staff had developed a new incentive to encourage relatives and friends of people who used the service to get involved.” from the report
Regular quality monitoring
The manager and provider used audits, feedback and action plans to check safety and quality and identify improvements.
“People could be confident that the quality of the service would be monitored.” from the report
Some weekly weights were missed
needs fixingOne person at high risk of weight loss was meant to be weighed weekly, but this did not happen in some weeks. Inspectors found no impact because the person's weight had stayed stable, and the manager addressed it.
“We saw there were some weeks where the person had not been weighed, however there had been no impact as the person's weight had remained stable.” from the report
Hospital discharge planning was not always prompt
needs fixingPeople moving from hospital to the short-term unit did not always have a care plan prepared quickly. Inspectors also found that more could be done to help people regain independence before returning home.
“A care plan which gave staff details about their needs, likes and preferences was not always set up in a timely way.” from the report
Activities were less personalised in one area
minorThe home offered activities, but inspectors found that less time was spent learning about hobbies and interests in one unit. The manager said person-centred activities would be extended there.
“Activities were offered to people in the unit but not as much time was spent getting to know their hobbies and interests.” from the report
Dementia wayfinding needed attention
minorInspectors discussed the lack of signs to help people living with dementia find their way around after the refurbishment. The manager said this had already been identified and was being considered.
“We discussed with the registered manager the lack of signage which would support people who lived with a dementia related illness to orientate themselves.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure risk assessments are fully updated when a person's independence creates risks to them or other people?
- 02How do you monitor weekly weights for people at risk of losing weight, and what happens if a weighing is missed?
- 03For someone arriving from hospital, how quickly will their care plan be completed and shared with staff and family?
- 04How will you support a person in the short-term unit to regain the skills and confidence needed to return home?
- 05What personalised activities are available in each unit, including for someone living with dementia?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and setting ratings for the whole service. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 February 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 The Oaks Residential Home
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 16 February 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
90 live-in carers within about an hour of Nottingham
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 £1,270 a week. 73 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.