Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Mr Mohedeen Assrafally & Mrs Bibi Toridah Assrafally

Oakview Residential Care Home

19 Oakwood Avenue, Gatley, Cheadle, SK8 4LR

Goodpublished 10 February 2024, 2 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the service performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
People felt safe, there were enough staff, recruitment checks were completed and medicines were safely stored and given as prescribed. Some guidance for occasional medicines could have included more detail, and actions from a recent fire risk assessment were still being addressed.
Effective?
Good
People's needs were assessed and care plans were in place. Staff were trained and supported, and worked with health professionals. Records about capacity, consent and best-interest decisions were not always complete or clear.
Caring?
Good
People and relatives described staff as kind, patient and respectful. People were supported to make choices, stay independent and be involved in decisions about their care.
Responsive?
Good
Care was personalised and staff knew people's preferences. People were supported with activities, community visits, communication and end-of-life care. Daily notes did not always record refusals of personal care or what staff had done in response.
Well-led?
Good
People, families and staff spoke positively about the management team. Audits, meetings and surveys were used to gather feedback and make improvements, and the home worked with outside services.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, February 2024

Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but some decision-making and care records needed improvement.

This was an unannounced inspection on 11 January 2024. One inspector and an Expert by Experience looked around the home, observed care, reviewed records and spoke with people, families and staff.

Inspectors found enough suitably recruited staff, safe medicines arrangements and systems for managing risks. People said they felt safe. Staff were described as kind, respectful and knowledgeable about people's needs.

People received personalised care and support with meals, healthcare, activities and relationships. Families said communication was good and that managers were approachable. The home was rated Good in all five areas: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.

Inspectors recommended improvements to records about mental capacity, consent and best-interest decisions. They also noted some incomplete daily notes, actions from a fire risk assessment and areas needing refurbishment.

What inspectors praised
  • People felt safe

    People and relatives said they felt safe. Inspectors found systems for assessing and managing risks, with enough staff to respond quickly.

    People felt safe and systems to assess, monitor and manage risk were in place and being used.from the report
  • Kind and respectful care

    People described staff as kind, helpful and respectful. Inspectors saw positive relationships and found that people were encouraged to remain independent.

    People told us staff were very kind and caring.from the report
  • Personalised support

    Care plans reflected people's needs, likes and dislikes. Staff supported people with activities, community trips and healthcare appointments.

    Care plans were personalised, and staff clearly knew people well.from the report
  • Good communication

    Families said they were kept informed about health appointments and changes affecting their relative. People and families could give feedback and raise concerns.

    Families told us communication was good and they were kept up to date with how their family member was.from the report
  • End-of-life support

    Relatives who had experienced end-of-life care spoke very positively about the support given to the person and family.

    Relatives who had a family member who had received end of life care were very complimentary about how staff had supported the person and family.from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Mental capacity records

    needs fixing

    Records did not always clearly show capacity assessments, consent and best-interest decisions. The CQC recommended that the provider review its processes.

    Further work was needed to ensure robust assessments of capacity, clear consent and records of best interest decision were maintained as this was not always in place or clear.from the report
  • Incomplete daily notes

    needs fixing

    Daily notes did not always record when people refused parts of their personal care or what staff did afterwards. This made management oversight and escalation more difficult.

    However daily notes did not always reflect where people were refusing certain aspects of personal care and what action had been taken.from the report
  • Fire safety actions

    needs fixing

    A recent fire risk assessment identified actions that still needed to be completed. The provider was arranging for these to be addressed.

    A recent fire risk assessment had identified some actions required and the provider was in the process of making arrangements for these to be addressed.from the report
  • Some areas need updating

    minor

    Some parts of the home and some equipment needed refurbishment or updating. The provider had a rolling programme of redecoration and improvements.

    There were some areas of the home where a refurbishment or update was needed to ensure that equipment was easy to clean.from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How are capacity assessments, consent and best-interest decisions recorded, and what has changed since the inspection?
  2. 02How do you record and review refusals of personal care, including any action taken afterwards?
  3. 03What actions from the recent fire risk assessment remain outstanding, and when will they be completed?
  4. 04Which parts of the home or equipment are due for refurbishment, and what is the timetable?
  5. 05How are variable-dose and other occasional medicines explained to staff?

This was an unannounced inspection covering all five rating areas, including the building and the care provided; the previous Good ratings from 2018 were reviewed and remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 February 2024 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Oakview Residential Care Home

3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.

  1. February 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Oakview Residential Care Home

  2. October 2018Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. January 2017Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. January 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. September 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. June 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. October 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. January 2011

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 18 January 2011.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

Same provider

Other services run by Mr Mohedeen Assrafally & Mrs Bibi Toridah Assrafally

2 other services on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.

Nearby

Other care homes near Cheadle

Abbeyfield House

Gatley, SK8 · 0.1 km
Requires improvement
NursingDementia
Rated 2 years agoReport explained

Wellcroft

Stockport, SK8 · 0.4 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 6 years agocare home

Cheddle Lodge

Stockport, SK8 · 1.4 km
Good
Residential
Rated 6 years agocare home

7 Fairmile Drive

Manchester, M20 · 1.5 km
Good
Residential
Rated 19 months agocare home