Oat Hill Mews

Updated 26 February 2026

This location is dual registered. Dual registration is when a provider has stated, and is able to evidence, that at least two providers are both responsible for managing the regulated activities at a single location. CQC consider both providers to be severally liable and responsible for the carrying on of the regulated activity, irrespective of any specific arrangements between them. This means that any default or breach by one provider is the responsibility of both providers. The two providers responsible for the location are Care UK Community Partnerships Ltd, and Care UK Care Services Limited. This report should be read in conjunction with the report for Oat Hill Mews 1-19896727163.

Date of assessment: 9 March to 23 March 2026

This assessment was undertaken as the first inspection of this newly registered service.

Oat Hill Mews is a care home providing accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care. Oat Hill Mews can support up to 76 people. The service provides support to younger or older adults living with physical health needs or dementia. At the time of our assessment there were 37 people living at the service.

People and relatives gave mostly positive feedback about Oat Hill Mews. We observed staff being friendly, caring and respectful, and the home felt welcoming with good facilities and a pleasant atmosphere. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs, and staff had been recruited safely.

However, concerns were identified in respect of the governance and oversight in areas such as infection prevention and control, medicines and mental capacity assessments. Some mattress covers were not in a condition which could be cleaned easily, some bedding was soiled, and there were remedial works required in some ensuite bathrooms. Medicine in tablet format was given safely, however, there were concerns regarding other formats such as eyedrops and creams and the provider could not demonstrate, through records and checks, these were always being managed safely. Mental capacity assessments did not cover all areas of care, and best interest decisions lacked detail.

Some audits had identified repeated themes and trends, but these had not been actioned in a timely manner. Although leaders took action when inspectors raised the above concerns, the service needed stronger systems to ensure issues are found and addressed promptly through routine checks.

As a result, the provider is in breach of the legal regulation relating to good governance. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

Updated 26 February 2026

People and relatives provided largely positive feedback about their experiences of Oat Hill Mews. People told us staff were caring and we observed staff to be friendly, polite and welcoming. The environment was nicely decorated, offered a range of amenities, and people benefited from a pleasant atmosphere within the home. Relatives told us the coffee shop was a valued feature of the environment and the home felt welcoming. People and relatives spoke positively about food, with feedback being meals were very good. We observed the chef to be knowledgeable and confident in supporting people’s dietary needs.

Relatives told us they were involved in care planning, the home worked in partnership with the GP, and they observed staff to wear Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Relatives also told us they had not felt their family members were rushed by care staff. Relatives told us staff worked well with health professionals such as GPs. One relative said, “It is a happy place for the elderly, and they have some dignity and respect.”

However, a small number of relatives raised concerns. This included difficulty getting an answer on the phone, delays between raising concerns and action being taken, and feedback the manager was not always seen out on the floor. Some relatives also raised concerns around feeling not all staff were well-trained, and a few staff lacked empathy or kindness. While this feedback was not reflective of the majority of experiences shared, it indicated inconsistency and a need for leaders to strengthen oversight and responsiveness to ensure all people and relatives consistently experienced high-quality care and communication.