Oaklodge Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

This means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care. This service was in breach of legal Regulation 17, good governance. This was in relation to oversight of the service.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not have a clear shared vision, strategy and culture which was based on equity,

equality and engagement. They did not always understand the challenges and the needs of

people and their communities.

Staff and leaders were caring and strived to provide people’s care in a person-centred way, but

there was a lack of person-centred information about people which did not align with the

provider’s values.

Staff and relatives told us there was a positive and open culture within the service, but work

needed to be done to ensure communication between people and leaders was effective and

equitable.

There was an obvious willingness amongst staff and leaders to improve the service, but actions

needed to be embedded to ensure this could be achieved.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty. Leaders met on a weekly basis to discuss, review and plan actions. The registered manager received regular support from leaders in the provider and felt supported in their role. Staff told us that the registered manager was a good leader, one person said they are, “Very good and approachable.” Leaders had relevant experience, knowledge and skills developed over many years in the health and social care sector. Relatives told us that they were confident in the provider.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice

would be heard.

Staff had access to information on how to speak up, including details of external organisations,

such as the Care Quality Commission (CQC) and the Local Authority, and how to do so

anonymously without fear of reprisal.

Staff told us that they felt encouraged and confident to speak up. They felt that leaders listened

to them and addressed concerns. One staff member told us, in reference to the registered

manager, “They listen to our concerns and always do what’s needed.”

Staff had a good understanding of whistleblowing processes, however, there was not a process

in place for staff to raise anonymously raise concerns internally.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair

culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The provider had clear and effective policies in place around Equality and Diversity, which applied to both people using the service and staff. There was a diverse workforce in place, which better enabled them to understand different cultural, and religious needs amongst people. Some staff required reasonable adjustments to their role. This is when an employer makes adaptations to someone’s job to support them with protected characteristics, such as age or disability. Some staff members had their responsibilities adapted, to ensure they could continue to carry out their role, whilst upholding the safety of people using the service.

The provider did not have clear systems of accountability and good governance. They did not

act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes.

The provider had implemented some oversight of the service, however this did not cover all

aspects of care, or the service. Where there were systems in place to provide oversight, these

were not carried out to a good standard. This meant that shortfalls had not been identified, and

people were at risk of receiving poor care. This was mainly in relation to improving people’s

outcomes and experiences, safe environments, mental capacity assessments, information

available in relation to people, and medicines management.

The provider was receptive to feedback and began to implement actions during our assessment.

We were assured that going forward, there would be better systems in place in regard to

oversight of the service.

The provider did not always collaborate and work in partnership, to ensure services worked seamlessly for people. The provider needed to establish better partnerships with the local and wider community. There was little evidence that they were collaborating or working with the community. The provider had started to work closer with a persons’ day service to improve their experience and outcomes. People did not always have the opportunity to provide their feedback as the provider needed to develop a system to capture their views. Feedback from relatives was actively sought. The provider demonstrated a commitment to building and maintaining effective partnerships with relatives, health professionals, and other external organisations, such as advocacy services.

The provider did not always focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They did not always encourage creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They did not always actively contribute to safe, effective practice and research. The provider did have some systems in place for learning and improvement. For example, when an incident occurred, thorough investigations were completed and changes to processes were implemented where necessary. However, there were some shortfalls to apply this to other knowledge and information about people using the service. For example, where people were experiencing high levels of emotional distress, staff were documenting the support provided and what had and hadn’t worked, but no one had oversight of this to then implement in their care and share with the rest of the staff. The provider was receptive to this feedback, and they changed some of their processes during our assessment. This still needed to be fully embedded and applied to all relevant areas where learning was not always taking place.