Red Oaks

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 assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained the same. 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 learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Incidents and accidents were consistently recorded. The registered manager had oversight of recorded incidents to determine whether changes to people’s support needed to be made. Incidents were reviewed and there was clear description that included any actions taken. Staff understood their responsibilities to report any concerns.

The service encouraged open discussion about incidents, and staff were supported to understand what had happened and what could be improved. The registered manager maintained oversight of incident actions and used this information to guide team learning. This supported a culture where staff felt able to escalate concerns and work collaboratively to reduce risks and prevent recurrence.

Safety and continuity of care was a priority in people’s care. This happened through a collaborative, joined-up approach to safety that involved them along with staff and other partners in their care.

Assessments of need and risk assessments were completed when people moved into the service which helped to ensure safe, effective support. Care plans captured people's health conditions and medical needs. These provided the staff with the guidance they needed to seek additional professional health support and when to make appropriate referrals to partners

Staff made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. Records showed clear planning for health appointments and transitions, including support for people’s specific and complex needs.

People told us that staff made them feel safe living at the home, while relatives told us they felt assured that their loved ones were cared for and protected. One person said, “I feel safe. I feel I live at home. This is my home.”

People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities and acted to keep people safe. Staff had the training and knowledge to ensure they could recognise when people may be unsafe and to identify potential signs of abuse. One staff member said, “If I was to witness anything, I would raise it and report it. If you see or hear anything, you have a responsibility to raise it. I would raise that with the managers and if I felt I wasn’t heard, I would go beyond that.”

People were safeguarded as staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People were protected when issues around capacity had been identified. Mental capacity assessments had been conducted and recorded to determine whether they had capacity to make specific decisions about their care. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications were completed appropriately and in people’s best interests with minimal restrictions. Where people had a DoLS in place, conditions to their authorisations were being met.

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.

Risks to people had been identified, assessed and managed with their involvement. These assessments contained the information staff needed to manage these risks safely. For example, some people had been identified as requiring ongoing monitoring and support with pressure area care. There were detailed risk assessments that provided guidance which staff followed. One relative said of their loved one’s support, “No pressure sores, but thin skin that bruises easily, they have done risk analysis for easy bruising, they are very conscious of that.”

Risks associated with the safety of the environment and equipment were identified and managed appropriately. Regular checks to ensure fire safety had been undertaken and people had personal emergency evacuation plans which informed staff of how to support people to evacuate the building in the event of an emergency.

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

The environment permitted people to be able to move around freely, and communal areas were actively being used by people. Risks associated with the safety of the environment and equipment were identified and managed appropriately. Regular checks to ensure fire safety had been undertaken and people had personal emergency evacuation plans which informed staff of how to support people to evacuate the building in the event of an emergency.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development.

Staff were deployed effectively throughout the home, while leaders had flexible processes in place to ensure that staff could move and work within different units should the need arise. Care and clinical staff worked effectively together to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Feedback from people was generally positive around staff numbers although some people did comment that they felt more were needed during busy periods and we fed this back to the provider. Our observations of staff support and timeliness were positive, and people were supported quickly and safely.

New staff completed a full induction and probationary period. Training had been identified and provided to staff according to the needs of the people living at Red Oaks. One staff member said, “They care about training. I have not been thrown in the deep end. Their training is absolutely precise. I shadowed for two to three weeks. They wanted me to be familiar with the system and to know routines and all those things before they signed me off. Only then was I assessed with my medication competency. I felt confident and you're never, ever left alone.”

Staff were consistently recruited through an effective recruitment process that ensured they were safe to work with people. Appropriate checks had been completed prior to staff starting work which included checks through the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS). DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the Police National Computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. One staff member said, “They are keen on taking the right people. They're so keen on recruiting just the right people.”

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection.

The home had effective systems and processes in place to prevent and control infections, ensuring people lived in a clean, safe, and comfortable environment. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Infection control measures were effective.

Staff understood the importance of good infection control practices and were observed following guidance on hand hygiene, personal protective equipment (PPE), and safe food handling. Staff had access to PPE. Processes were in place to support effective and safe laundering of people’s clothing and items.

People spoke positively about the cleanliness of the home and staff’s approach to maintaining this. One person said, “Look around it is absolutely spotless, vacuum cleaner going twice a day, they come in regularly, they keep everything up to perfect standard.” Another person told us, “You only have to look. It’s immaculate.” Our observations supported this.

Medicines were managed safely.

The provider ensured that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs and preferences, taking their capacity into consideration. People’s medicines were managed, administered and stored safely. We observed medicines being administered safely and effectively. People spoke positively about the administration of their medicines. One person said, “They’re very good with that and they have good links with the doctors if I suddenly need something.”

The clinical team were organised and effective in monitoring and managing people’s medicines. There were regular support visits and monitoring from the provider’s clinical development team. This ensured competencies were maintained and that good safe practices continued.

Medication Administration Records (MAR) showed that people received their medicines as prescribed, and these records were completed accurately. PRN protocols were in place for medicines which were prescribed on a ‘when required’ basis. Regular audits were carried out to ensure there was enough stock and that storage was appropriate.