DrPA Secure - Oakhill Secure Training Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

We looked at 5 quality statements in this key question.

Many children lacked person-centred care plans, and existing plans were often incomplete. Communication needs were understood, yet SALT recommendations and multilingual resources were not consistently shared with relevant professionals. There was no formal feedback process, though children knew how to raise complaints. Access to care was flexible with reasonable adjustments made, but these were not always documented. Staff were experienced and trained.

Find out what we look at when we assess this area in our information about our new Single assessment framework.

Not all children had person centred care plans in place. For example, one child had mental health needs and did not have a care plan in place. Another child had a physical health care need however, there was no plan in place to guide staff who were caring for them.

Where children did have care plans in place, they were not always sufficiently detailed or personalised to reflect the child’s care needs. For example, one child was being supported with a serious healthcare need. We found there was no information recorded regarding the child’s view on the care they received or how they wished it to be carried out. This meant children were at risk of not having their needs met.

These were repeated concerns as we identified the same issues during our last inspection. The provider was working hard to address the concerns.

Despite this, during the inspection we observed highly person-centred interactions between staff and children. All staff we observed knew the child they were speaking with and gave children time and space to discuss their care.

Care staff understood the needs of the children in their care well. Staff were experienced in the setting, most had worked with children for many years. Leaders ensured staff had been trained to meet the needs of the children in their care.

Staff understood children’s communication needs well. However, there was not always enough information in care records to support this. All children were screened by SALT with more support offered where required. Despite this, the recommendations and tools to better aid effective communication with children were not always known to staff. We were told the provider would work to better share such information following our inspection.

Some information was made available to children in written form however there was not always enough information available to children whom English is not their first language. Interpretation services were available to staff should they be needed.

Sensitive information relating to children and staff was collected, stored and destroyed safely and appropriately.

At the time of the inspection there was no formal process in place for the provider to gather feedback from children. The provider told us they had been focused on operational objectives initially however recognised the need to implement such processes.

A complaints policy was in place however at the time of the inspection the provider had not received any complaints for us to review to see if this had been adhered to and review the effectiveness of the process.

Children we spoke with told us they knew how to raise a complaint or concern and felt confident in doing so.

Children received flexible care designed around their needs. There were no barriers to access for children as they were able to speak to care staff without delay. Out of hours provision was in place in the event of an emergency with the procedure known to healthcare and operational staff.

Where children required reasonable adjustments to access care, the provider ensured this was done. For example, we saw examples where care was delivered in a different setting due to a child’s specific needs. However, this information was not always included in care records.

The judgement for Equity in experiences and outcomes is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.

The judgement for Planning for the future is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Responsive key question.