Oak House

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 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. The registered manager and staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Accidents and incidents were recorded and analysed to see if any learning needed to be put into practice. Following analysis of incidents, the registered manager and staff identified patterns impacting a person’s health and well-being and took prompt action to arrange a review with health professionals. It was evident incidents had been reduced as a result of actions that had been taken. There was a proactive culture of analysis and looking for lessons that could be learned or improvements that could be made.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. One staff member shared how they had been trained and received opportunity to practice using equipment they might need in an emergency. The provider made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. People had access to a range of health and social care professionals. Staff spoke positively about the impact for people of health and social care partners working closely together. A professional that works with the service told us, “I have found the staff to seek appropriate help. Recently one [person] was struggling with [health concerns]. They sought my help and chased up the referrals when they hadn't heard.”

People were kept safe from avoidable harm because staff knew them well and understood how to protect them from abuse. The service worked well with other agencies to do so. A health professional who has regular contact with the service told us, “Staff have good knowledge and are in tune with people’s individual needs.” Our observations confirmed this. Some people at the home did not verbalise their feelings, however, we saw people were relaxed and comfortable with staff, choosing to sit with staff and join them in activities. Relatives consistently told us people were safe, one relative told us, “I believe they are safe because they are all looked after so well.”

Staff had received training in safeguarding people from abuse. Staff knew how to recognise and report concerns. All staff told us they were confident action would be taken if they reported any issues. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately with external stakeholders and CQC.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. People who had specific health conditions were supported effectively to protect them from the risk of harm. Best practice guidance was followed, and the risks were identified and mitigated whilst ensuring the person was able to maintain their independence and dignity. A health professional told us how risks were considered, “A person who resides at Oak House was referred us, we completed a joint visit to complete a [risk] assessment. I did not have any concerns regarding staff's ability to support them safely. We met with registered manager who was open to any recommendations.” Relatives spoke positively about how the registered manager and staff managed risk, one told us, “They always keep me informed.” Staff spoken with were aware of risk assessments in place and supported people appropriately.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. People lived in a home which was personalised, well maintained and met their needs. Staff carried out regular health and safety checks which included fire systems. The registered manager told us about their work to develop this further by linking with fire services. Equipment including lifting equipment was regularly serviced.

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. People were cared for by staff who had been safely recruited and received training to make sure they had the appropriate skills to effectively support people. People were involved in the recruitment process. There was a stable staff team who knew people well. One person told us, “I’m happy here, staff know me well.” Throughout our visits we observed warm and affectionate interactions between people and staff. All staff spoken with thought there were enough staff to meet people’s needs and support them with their chosen activities. Relatives were consistently positive about the skills and knowledge of the staff, comments included, “The team at Oak House are very friendly and take very good care of [person} and all their needs, they could not do anything better.” And “The staff here are marvellous. It's a lovely place and they really understand [family member]”.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. All areas of the home were clean and fresh. There were cleaning schedules in place to make sure good standards were maintained. Staff had received training in infection prevention and control and had access to personal protective equipment to use when needed.

The provider made sure medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. People received their medicines safely from staff who had received specific training to carry out the task. Managers and staff monitored the impact on people from changes in medicines and ensured regular communication with health professionals and relatives which ensured people’s treatment met their needs. Some people were prescribed medicines on an ‘as required’ basis. There were personalised protocols in place which gave staff clear guidance about how each person would express the need for these medicines. Staff were knowledgeable and understood how to recognise communication signals and signs to be aware of which helped to make sure people received these medicines appropriately even if they were unable to verbalise a need. Staff made sure people’s medicines were regularly reviewed to ensure they did not take unnecessary medicines.