CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 74 Oaklands
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe, risks were identified and there were enough staff. Medicines were managed safely, although inspectors found some infection control shortfalls and missing assessments for unsecured cleaning substances.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and support. People had enough food and drink, received support from health professionals and were helped to make decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw friendly, respectful and supportive interactions. Staff promoted people's choices, privacy and dignity.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support was personalised. People chose routines, meals and activities, took part in household tasks and community activities, and had person-centred support plans.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home had a caring ethos and regular staff meetings, but managers had limited presence at the home. Audits had not found problems with infection control or gaps in records about boiler work.
What inspectors found, March 2019
United Response - 74 Oaklands was rated Good overall, but inspectors found weaknesses in management checks and infection control.
This was an unannounced inspection. One inspector and an expert-by-experience visited, spoke with three people, three staff and a manager, and checked care records, training and management documents.
The home was rated Good for safe, effective, caring and responsive care. People were supported by staff who knew them well. Inspectors saw kind relationships, choice in daily life, safe medicines management and activities at home and in the community.
The well-led rating was Requires Improvement. Management cover was available, but managers were not regularly based at the home. Checks had failed to identify some problems, including cleanliness and infection control issues. The report says the overall impact of these safety shortfalls was low.
The previous inspection was in March 2016. The home was rated Good then, with no breaches. This report does not record any breached regulations or enforcement action.
Kind relationships
Staff had worked at the home for many years and knew people well. Inspectors saw relaxed, respectful and supportive interactions.
“All interactions, throughout the inspection were friendly, respectful and supportive.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about their support and daily routines. They helped with cooking, shopping and household tasks if they wished.
“People were encouraged to give consent and make decisions.” from the report
Community life
People took part in social groups, church activities, exercise and voluntary work. Staff also supported contact with family and friends.
“People enjoyed a range of social activity both at home and within the community.” from the report
Staff skills and support
Staff had completed the required training and said they could request further training. They described a close team that supported one another.
“There was a small, cohesive staff team. Staff supported each other well and received a range of training to develop their knowledge and skills.” from the report
Infection control
minorInspectors found clothing on the laundry room floor, debris on dining room chairs and no clear washing schedule for hand towels. The report assessed the impact on safety as low.
“However, this did not always promote the prevention and control of infection.” from the report
Management checks
needs fixingQuality audits had not identified the cleanliness and infection control problems found during the visit. This contributed to the Requires Improvement well-led rating.
“The formats were not always effective as they had not identified shortfalls, which were found at this inspection.” from the report
Heating records
minorSome bedrooms and the dining room felt cold. Staff adjusted the heating, but there was no record showing what work the boiler engineer had completed.
“There was not a certificate of works, to show the reason for the visit or to confirm the safety of the systems.” from the report
Limited management presence
needs fixingThe registered manager was on extended leave and managers were based at the organisation's office rather than the home. Inspectors said this increased the risk of problems being missed.
“Whilst recognising staff were very experienced, the relaxed management style of the service increased the risk of things being missed.” from the report
- 01How often does a manager now visit the home, and who is responsible for checking standards when the registered manager is absent?
- 02What changes have been made to prevent infection control problems such as debris, clothing on the floor and unclear hand-towel washing arrangements?
- 03How are audits now checked to make sure they identify problems before an inspection?
- 04What was done to repair or check the heating, and is there now written evidence of boiler work and safety checks?
- 05Have written risk assessments been completed for the cleaning substances stored in the downstairs toilet and bathroom?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five questions, although the report contains an inconsistent date, giving the visit as 5 December 2018 in the summary and 5 December 2019 in one later section. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 March 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 74 Oaklands
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about two hours of Wiltshire
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 £1,340 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Linet became her carer and all changed, my daughter started eating, taking her medications and more important her happiness came back.”
“I cannot recommend Prisca highly enough, she is one in a million.”
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.