Oaklands Littlehampton 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. At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating 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 learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

Systems were in place to record and review accidents, incidents and concerns. Staff told us they felt able to raise concerns and described the management team as approachable and supportive. Leaders analysed incidents and accidents for themes and trends and shared learning through staff meetings, handovers and governance processes to improve practice. People told us staff responded appropriately when incidents occurred. One person described how staff responded following an injury and said, “The staff were helpful. They stopped the bleeding and kept an eye on me afterwards.” This supported safer care by reducing the likelihood of repeated incidents and improving how risks were managed.

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

People could access healthcare services, when needed, and staff worked with external professionals to maintain continuity of care. Care records included information about healthcare involvement, referrals and support needs. Staff described effective communication during handovers and when people’s needs changed. Feedback from professionals was positive. Relatives also spoke positively about how staff supported people when needs changed. One relative told us, “The team go above and beyond to make sure [person] is supported.”

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. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Staff showed a good understanding of safeguarding and were able to explain how they would recognise and report concerns. Systems and procedures were in place to support safeguarding oversight and staff told us they felt confident escalating concerns when required. People told us they felt safe living at the service and records demonstrated safeguarding concerns had been referred appropriately, with actions taken to reduce ongoing risks to people.

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.

Risk assessments were in place to support staff in managing risks associated with people’s health conditions, wellbeing and care needs. People and relatives told us staff supported them safely and understood their individual needs and risks. The registered manager described how some people were supported with positive risk-taking, with guidance in place to help staff balance people’s independence and lifestyle choices alongside their safety needs. One person told us, “For me, I still drive, I go out when I like and this is encouraged by the staff”. This supported people to remain as independent as possible while reducing avoidable risks.

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

People were supported in surroundings that were arranged and maintained with their safety in mind. The environment was organised and well presented, which supported people to move around the service safely. Equipment used to support people with their care was available and observed to be in working order. Technology was also used within the home to support people’s safety and enable staff to respond promptly when incidents occurred. Clear signage was in place to support people’s orientation within the home. Staff understood how to raise environmental concerns and safety issues, which helped reduce risks, such as falls, and supported people to move around the service safely and as independently as possible.

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.

Staffing levels were monitored against people’s assessed needs and were regularly reviewed to support safe deployment across the service. Staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s individual needs and described how they worked together to provide safe and consistent care. Information about people’s needs and routines was shared through handovers and care records to support safe care delivery. Feedback from professionals was positive. One professional told us staff were “highly engaged and knowledgeable about each individual resident, their clinical situations and specific needs.” One relative said, “[Person] needs a lot of help, I feel staff are trained. They are proactive in seeking help and are good at getting it done.” This meant people received consistent and safe care from staff who understood their needs and could respond appropriately.

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.

People could access an environment where infection risks were managed appropriately. During our assessment the home was clean, tidy and well maintained. Staff understood infection prevention and control practices and described how protective equipment was used to reduce the risk of infection spreading. Staff were able to explain the processes in place for cleaning equipment and maintaining cleanliness within the home. Leaders monitored infection prevention and control practices, including environmental checks and audits to support safe standards within the service.

The provider made sure that 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 and in line with their individual needs. We observed a medicines administration round and saw medicines being administered in a safe and person-centred way. Staff understood people’s individual needs and preferences when supporting them with medicines. For example, one person requested pain relief during the medicines round and staff were able to explain the associated risks and discuss this appropriately before administering the medicine.

Protocols were in place to guide staff on the use of ‘as required’ medicines. One person told us, “They ask me if I need some [as required medicines].” Medicines systems supported safe management and oversight, including electronic medicines records, audits and regular monitoring processes. Medicines were stored securely and checks were completed to support safe medicines practices within the home, including controlled drugs audits and temperature monitoring.