White Oak Care Limited

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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated 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.

Systems were in place to learn from lessons following accidents and incidents.

The service had systems in place to record accidents and incidents. Staff documented any events, and the management team carried out investigations on the incidents. Lessons were learnt as part of these investigations. This process helped reduce the risk of similar incidents occurring again, supporting people to remain as safe as possible while using the service.

An accident and incident policy was in place that detailed the process to manage accidents and incidents.

The provider worked with people and professionals to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care when people were being supported.

Systems were in place to capture information as part of the pre-assessment process to determine if the service can support people safely. This included speaking with the referring agency, the person and their relatives.

We saw the pre-assessment had been completed and used to record key information about people’s support and care needs to determine the support required. This information was then used to create care plans based on people’s preferences and choices on the support they required. The registered manager told us, where possible, people had the same carers to ensure relationships were built so people received continuity of care.

People were provided with a placement guide when moving into the supported living service, which included information on the support available and details on how to keep themselves safe.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners 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, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect.

A safeguarding policy was in place that detailed the types of abuse and how to escalate concerns if staff suspected or saw abuse to ensure people were protected.

People and relatives told us that people felt safe when supported by staff, reflecting a positive perception of the service's commitment to safety and wellbeing. A person told us, “Yeah, I am ok.”

Staff knew about safeguarding processes and had received training in this area. Staff told us that they received safeguarding training. The training included identifying indicators of abuse, understanding the various forms abuse can take, and learning the appropriate procedures to follow should any concerns be raised. A staff member told us, “To protect [people] from abuse, neglect, protect their right, promote their well-being, empower them. In case of colleague abusing resident, I would report it to manager, (local authority) council, CQC.”

The service managed people’s finances and checks were in place to ensure people’s finances were safeguarded.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risk assessments were in place to ensure people received safe care. Risks had been identified and there were risk assessments to ensure people were safe when being supported such as on people’s health conditions, positive behaviour plans and when out in the community. Guidance was in place for staff to follow on what actions to take in relation to manage risks to make sure people remained as safe as possible.

Risk assessments were reviewed, and any changes were reflected with updated risk assessments.

A missing person profile was in place that included people’s descriptions and photo to ensure people can be found if they were missing.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment.

Risk assessments had been completed on people’s home environment. Information included details on risks or hazards within the environment to ensure care and support could be provided to people in a safe way and risks to staff and people were minimised such as on fire safety, security and access to the property.

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

Staff had completed key training such as on safeguarding, eating and drinking and first aid. Specialist training was also completed such as on learning disabilities, autism and epilepsy. Staff completed the Care Certificate training. The Care Certificate isa set of 16 mandatory standards for healthcare and social care support workers in the UK, developed by Skills for Care, Skills for Health, and NHS England. Systems were in place that showed the training staff had completed and the dates the training were completed to ensure oversight. A staff member told us, “They [management] provide the training. Whenever the training is available, they tell us, provide the deadline to complete.”

Regular supervisions had been carried out to ensure staff were supported. Staff confirmed they received regular supervisions and support from the registered manager. A staff member told us, “Every 3 months, we do [supervision] online. They also collect feedback, I also asked about first aid training, and they provided. If I face difficulty I share in my supervision.” Another staff member commented, “Yes, the management is very friendly and supportive, I feel supported.”

There were appropriate numbers of staff on duty to support people safely at the supported living sites. Rotas confirmed there were enough staff to support people safely. We observed staff were available to support people when required. Relatives had no concerns about staffing level. A relative told us, “Enough staff. When [person] goes to college, there are 2 staff providing care/assistance, after [person] comes back there is 1 carer.”

Records showed relevant pre-employment checks, such as criminal records checks, right to work in the UK, references and proof of the person’s identity had been carried out to ensure staff were of good character.

The provider had an effective approach to assessing and managing the risk of infection, which is in line with current relevant national guidance.

Systems were in place to prevent infection. Staff were able to tell us the process of ensuring people were protected from infection such as good hygiene protocols and wearing personal protective equipment and that they had been trained in infection control. Infection control audits had been completed ensuring staff adhered to good infection control standards such as ensuring good hand hygiene. A relative told us, “Yes, they clean hands, clean floor, toilet.”

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

Medicines were managed safely. Medicines Administration Records (MARs) showed that medicines had been administered as prescribed. For medicine to be administered when needed, protocols were in place to ensure the medicine was administered safely. Medicines audits were carried out to ensure people received their medicines safely. Staff had also been trained in medicines management.

The service also had information on Stopping over medication of people with a learning disability and autistic people (STOMP), which was a national NHS England work programme to stop the inappropriate prescribing of psychotropic medications. The registered manager told us they worked with a GP to stop a person’s prescribed medicine to manage their anxiety as the service felt through care and support provided this medicine was not needed that frequently.

We observed medicines were securely stored at the supported living site and temperature was monitored within the storage area.

Staff told us they were confident in managing medicines. The registered manager was able to demonstrate the process of ensuring medicines were managed safely such as training being delivered to staff and regular checks made on medicines administration and records.