Oaklawn

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last inspection, we rated this key question good. At this inspection, the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 75 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learned to identify and embed good practice. Team meetings, supervision and competency checks were used to share learning, reinforce expected standards, and identify development needs.

There were procedures in place to review accidents or incidents to identify any themes or action which could be taken to reduce the likelihood of recurrence. This included adapting care approaches and strengthening staff knowledge and skills to better meet people’s needs. Staff confirmed they were encouraged to contribute their views about how people’s support could be adapted to reduce the risk of further incidents.

The provider worked with people and partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Staff communicated effectively with people’s families and health and social care professionals to plan and manage transitions, ensuring relevant information was shared promptly and accurately. This helped ensure people experienced safe, seamless transitions when they moved between services.

Relatives told us staff used their skills and a person-centred approach to support well-managed transitions, enabling their family members to settle quickly into their new home. One relative said, “The sense of calm when [family member] moved in was amazing. We know she feels safe there.”

The provider worked with people to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, abuse, avoidable harm and neglect.

Relatives were confident their family members felt safe and secure in the home and in the company of staff. One relative told us, “That is [family member’s] safe space for sure. She feels very comfortable and safe there.”

Staff attended safeguarding training in their induction and regular refresher training. The staff we spoke with understood how to recognise potential abuse and how to report any concerns they had, including escalating these if necessary. The registered manager understood their responsibility to notify and work with relevant agencies should safeguarding events occur.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe and supportive.

Risk assessments were carried out to identify potential risks in people’s care, including areas such as moving and handling, skin integrity, and nutrition and hydration. Where risks were identified, actions were taken to reduce these, including providing staff with detailed, person-centred guidance on how to support people safely.

Staff took a balanced approach to risk management, supporting people to take appropriate risks so they could continue to do what was important to them. This promoted people’s independence, choice and wellbeing while maintaining their safety.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment and facilities supported the delivery of safe care.

Systems were in place to identify and manage environmental risks, including regular health and safety checks and equipment maintenance. Any hazards identified were addressed to reduce the likelihood of harm. Staff understood how to use equipment safely and followed guidance to minimise risks to people.

A personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) had been developed for each person, which detailed the support they would need in the event of an emergency such as a fire.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective induction, training and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s needs.

Staff were always available when people needed them. We observed that people did not have to wait for care when they needed it. This was confirmed by relatives and professionals, who said staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s needs when they visited.

Staff completed an induction when they started work and ongoing training to ensure they had the skills to provide safe and effective care. This included specific training relevant to people’s needs, such as dysphagia and epilepsy. All staff were expected to achieve the Care Certificate, a set of 16 mandatory standards for health and social care workers in the UK, designed to ensure they possess the required skills, knowledge, and behaviours to provide compassionate, high-quality care.

Staff said they received the ongoing support they needed to perform their roles. They told us one-to-one supervision sessions provided opportunities for learning, development and reflection.

Staff were recruited safely. The provider carried out pre-employment checks including obtaining a Disclosure and Barring Service certificate. Disclosure and Barring Service checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions.

Staff assessed and managed the risk of infection. They controlled the risk of it spreading and understood their responsibility to share concerns with appropriate agencies, if necessary.

Staff received training in infection prevention and control (IPC) and how to work in line with the provider’s IPC policy and best practice guidance. Staff had access to personal protective equipment when they needed it and were trained in how to use and dispose of this safely.

The provider made sure that medicines were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

There were appropriate arrangements in place for the storage, administration, recording, and disposal of medicines. The provider carried out regular medicines checks and audits as part of their quality monitoring processes. The medicines administration records we checked were complete and up to date. An independent pharmacist had audited the arrangements for managing medicines at the home in May 2026 and identified no concerns.

Each person had a medicines profile which detailed any allergies to medicines. Individual protocols were in place for medicines prescribed ‘as and when required’ (PRN). Protocols for homely remedies had been authorised by the GP.

Staff received training in medicines management, and their competency was regularly assessed. Staff told us this helped ensure they had the knowledge and skills they needed to manage people’s medicines safely.