CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at The Oast
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2022
The Oast was inspected but not rated; inspectors found generally good COVID-19 infection controls, with a small waste-bin shortfall.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 15 February 2022. Inspectors checked infection prevention and control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic and asked about staffing pressures.
The home had arrangements for safe visiting, including checks of visitors' test results, temperature checks, masks and hand sanitiser. It had plans for isolating people with COVID-19, good supplies of protective equipment, regular testing and enhanced cleaning.
Inspectors found that four locations did not have pedal-controlled waste bins. The registered manager said these would be replaced immediately. The service was inspected but not rated, so this report does not give an overall quality rating.
Safe visiting
Visitors were checked for COVID-19 test results and temperatures, and were asked to use hand sanitiser and wear masks. The home had areas for visits that reduced the risk of infection spreading.
“Visitors were asked about their Lateral Flow Test (LFT) result to ensure they were negative before staff facilitated the visit” from the report
PPE and testing
The home had protective equipment readily available and staff were regularly tested. Staff had also received training about keeping people safe during the pandemic.
“The service had good supplies of personal protective equipment (PPE) such as masks and hand sanitisers that were readily available at stations throughout the service.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the building clean and without clutter. Enhanced cleaning was in place.
“The building was clean and free from clutter and there were enhanced cleaning practices.” from the report
Outbreak planning
The home had plans to isolate people with COVID-19 and arrangements to prevent or manage infection outbreaks.
“Plans were in place to isolate people with COVID-19 to minimise transmission if required.” from the report
Waste bins
minorFour locations did not have pedal-controlled waste bins. The manager said they would be replaced immediately, but inspectors said this would have supported infection control more robustly.
“We observed on our walk through the home that there were no pedal controlled waste bins in four locations namely, bathroom downstairs, clinical, medication and laundry rooms.” from the report
- 01Have the four pedal-controlled waste bins been replaced, and which locations now have them?
- 02How are visitors currently checked and supported to follow the home's infection control arrangements?
- 03What happens if someone living in the home develops COVID-19, and how would visiting be managed?
- 04How are staffing pressures currently affecting people living in the home?
- 05How often are staff and residents currently tested for COVID-19?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and COVID-19-related staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 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, October 2017
Rated Good overall, but well-led Requires Improvement because quality checks were not yet consistent.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 7 and 8 September 2017. They spoke with people living there, relatives and staff, observed care, and reviewed care plans, staff records and quality checks.
They found good standards in safety, effective care, kindness and respect, and responsiveness to people's needs. There were enough staff, medicines were generally managed safely, people's healthcare and nutrition needs were supported, and complaints were investigated.
The home was not consistently well-led. Audits had not always been completed as required. Some consent forms were unsigned without an explanation, and medicines competency checks had not been completed at the expected intervals.
The overall rating was Good. The well-led rating was Requires Improvement, so the service had important management systems to strengthen even though the other four areas were rated Good.
Enough staff and safe care
Inspectors found sufficient staff to meet people's needs. Staff understood safeguarding and personal risks, and the environment had appropriate safety checks.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to support people's needs and the staffing rota showed that staff were organised in an appropriate way.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and supported them in a calm, dignified and personal way. People and relatives spoke positively about the care.
“They interacted with people in a kind, caring and happy manner.” from the report
Personalised care and choice
Care plans reflected people's individual needs, preferences and risks. People were supported to make choices about daily routines, food, clothing and personal care.
“Care plans were personalised, detailed and reflected the individualised care and support staff provided to people.” from the report
Good support with health and nutrition
The home made appropriate referrals to health professionals and supported people with special diets, weight concerns and hydration.
“People's healthcare needs were met and when necessary staff contacted health and social care professionals for advice and support.” from the report
Complaints were followed up
The home had a complaints process and records showed that complaints were investigated and outcomes communicated.
“Complaints were recorded and responded to appropriately and there have been no recent complaints.” from the report
Medicines competency checks
needs fixingStaff had not received medicines competency assessments since the new provider took over. Assessments began during the inspection, and the home later provided evidence that all staff had completed them.
“However, staff had not received competency training since the new provider took over the registration on 16 September 2016.” from the report
Quality audits were not consistent
needs fixingThe provider had audit tools, but checks were not always completed in line with its own policy. Inspectors said the quality assurance systems were not yet embedded and sustained.
“However, not all audits had been carried out consistently in the months prior to the inspection.” from the report
Some consent records were incomplete
needs fixingSome consent forms were not signed, and the reason was not recorded even though the manager could explain it. Inspectors recommended keeping all parts of people's records up to date.
“We found that some consent forms had not been signed by people using the service without identifying why this was the case.” from the report
Limited outings
minorPeople and relatives wanted more chances to go out. There was one outing each month, but only four people could attend.
“There was one outing activity each month but the service was limited to only be able to take four people.” from the report
- 01How often are medicines competency assessments now completed, and how do you check that every staff member remains competent?
- 02How do you make sure all audits are completed on time and that identified improvements are followed through?
- 03If my relative cannot sign a consent form, how will you record the reason and confirm that decisions are made lawfully?
- 04How many outings are now offered, and how many residents can attend each one?
- 05How are relatives involved in reviewing care plans and receiving updates about changes in care?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and was the first inspection since the new provider took over the service on 16 September 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 October 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 Oast
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 12 September 2016.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.