Updated 3 January 2020
The inspection
We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.
Inspection team
The inspection was completed by one inspector.
Service and service type
Oak House & Maple Lodge is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.
This inspection was unannounced. On the first day of the visit we were not able to complete the inspection as the registered manager and deputy manager had another appointment and most people were out. The member of staff working was busy supporting people. We briefly spoke to the registered manager and looked at communal areas of the home. We made arrangements to return the following week to complete the inspection.
What we did before the inspection
We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.
During the inspection
We spoke with five people who used the service about their experience of the care provided. We spoke with four members of staff including the registered manager and two support staff, who were called recovery workers.
We reviewed a range of records. This included four people’s support records and multiple medicine records. A variety of records relating to the management of the service were reviewed.