Oakdale

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 newly registered 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 service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. People were involved in their care, the service worked with people following an accident or incident to prevent a recurrence. Daily and weekly review meetings included learning from events within the service. This had supported learning across the service and included reviewing events to identify themes and trends. Records confirmed reviews were undertaken regularly and in accordance with the providers policy.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. People and their relatives told us they felt staff at the service communicated when required with external health and social care professionals. Relationships between the service and external professionals were established and operated well, feedback collected during the assessment was positive. There were safe systems in place to ensure essential information was shared as necessary. The service had a summary of people’s needs and requirements from the providers electronic care planning system. This meant a safe transition between services, such as, for admission to hospital.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They 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 service shared concerns quickly and appropriately. People and their relatives told us Oakdale was a safe place to be. Staff knew how to ensure people were protected from harm and abuse. Staff told us how they would raise safeguarding concerns both within the service and externally. Staff were confident the registered manager would follow up any concerns and make the necessary referrals to the local authority as required. Staff understood how to ensure people were kept safe from avoidable harm and had received training in safeguarding adults. Regular reminders and updates meant keeping people safe was always a priority. Posters reminded everyone how and where to raise concerns. A health and social care professional said, “I feel people are safe living at Oakdale.” Records showed all referrals had been made as appropriate. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place, when needed, to deprive a person of their liberty, and whether any conditions relating to those authorisations were being met. The registered manager had oversight of authorisations and people’s rights were respected.

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. People told us staff worked to keep them safe and understood their needs. Relatives agreed they had confidence and peace of mind. Staff told us they had enough information regarding people’s individual risks, they knew people well. People’s risks were assessed before they started to use the service and updated as needed. Risk assessments were created and maintained; they were accessible to staff. Work was ongoing to ensure the safe transfer of risk information to a new electronic care planning system.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. People told us they could move around the home safely and without restriction. The home was accessible. Staff understood how to keep people safe and had received training on using equipment correctly. Staff told us they reported any concerns with the environment, and they were addressed promptly. We observed the environment to be well maintained. Staff told us they were clear on their responsibilities to ensure a safe environment for people. Equipment and utility checks were up to date to support safety. A dedicated team was responsible for maintenance within the service, this included provider oversight as information was input into an electronic compliance system. The home used external specialists and contractors to undertake some specialist checks as necessary.

The service 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 told us staff were there when they needed them. A person told us, “Staff are magic here, they work their way around anything. When I press the bell, you aren't in any bother, they come straight away even at 3am and they've never discouraged me to use it even if I'm just asking for a cup of tea.” Staff were complimentary about their colleagues and told us they worked well as a team. The service had a thorough induction, shadowing, competency checks and ongoing support process in place. Training was in accordance with good practice guidelines for staff who worked with people who required care and support. Recruitment processes were in place; staff were recruited safely. Procedures were in place to ensure the required checks were completed prior to staff commencing their employment. This included enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks for adults. DBS checks provide information including details about convictions and cautions held on the police national computer. The information helps employers make safer recruitment decisions. Support was ongoing and there was a schedule of supervisions and appraisals, records showed the conversations were two-way and detailed.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. People and their relatives told us the home was clean and tidy, this included people’s own bedrooms and communal areas. Staff received training in infection prevention and control. Dedicated staff were employed and ensured the home was clean. We observed the home to be clean and hygienic. People were supported to maintain their own environment, and this included their bedrooms. Personal protective equipment (PPE) was worn appropriately by staff. Safe infection prevention and control procedures were in place and were supported by the providers policy. Infection control procedures and audits were in line with good practice guidance. Staff had plentiful supplies of cleaning materials, products, and PPE.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. They involved people in planning, including when changes happened. People received their medicines as prescribed. Medicines were given in a safe way, and this included if they needed any medicines prescribed to be given ‘when required’. During the inspection improvements were made to the process for ensuring stock levels were correct. The registered manager strengthened the process, and we were assured by the actions taken. People told us they were happy with the way they received their medicines. Staff told us they felt well supported, they told us they had received training and competency checks, to make sure they gave medicines safely, they felt systems worked well. Records showed that people received their medicines as prescribed. There were arrangements for the storage, administration and disposal of medicines. Medicines which required stricter controls by law were stored and administered correctly. Risk assessments were in place for higher risk medicines, and regular audits took place to identify areas for improvement.