Oat Hill Mews

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 17 June 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

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.