Whiteoaks Rest Home

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 66 (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. Any complaints had been investigated and outcomes shared with relevant people. The provider told us how they would ensure lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. A staff member told us, “We are encouraged by management to report any near misses or safety concerns. Should any accident occur, we deal with it with a ‘no blame’ approach to help us learn and improve continuously.”

The provider 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 had initial assessment documents in place which covered all appropriate areas.

The provider 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 provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. People told us they felt safe living in the home and their relatives told us they were confident people were safe. One person told us, “I feel safe here, the staff are nice, kind, caring and well organised.” Staff knew how to protect people from abuse and who they would report any concerns to both internally and externally.

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. Staff knew people very well and people told us they were involved in developing their care plans and risk assessments. The provider was working to update people’s risk assessments to ensure the information known by staff was documented and to ensure new staff were able to meet people’s needs. We found care plans and risk assessments were reviewed regularly; however, further work could be done to ensure these were more comprehensive.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. For example, temperature control is the traditional strategy for reducing the risk of legionella in hot and cold-water systems. The provider was testing hot water temperatures regularly; however, had not been testing cold water temperatures and although the provider was flushing infrequently used taps to prevent the risk of legionella, they were not documenting this. The provider was responsive and immediately implemented cold water temperature testing and implemented a recording chart to document flushing of infrequently used taps. This supported them to ensure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The provider did not always make sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff. For example, the provider had not always sought the reason staff left all previous employment in health and social care services in line with Schedule 3 of the Health and Social Care Act. The provider told us they would update their policy to include the requirements of Schedule 3 and put plans in place to ensure this was completed going forward. Interview records were not always kept by the provider. They have put measures in place to ensure records of interviews will be kept going forward. The provider’s comprehensive interview process included a full day on site observing interactions between new recruits and people and getting to know candidates. Staff received support, supervision and development and worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

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. The provider had an up-to-date Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) policy. Staff attended IPC training. We reviewed cleaning schedules which were consistently completed. People and their relatives told us the home was clean, and we observed this.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs. We counted medicines and checked this against the providers stock records, we found discrepancies for 4 medicines which meant people may not have received all of their medicines on 1 or 2 occasions. The registered manager was unable to check when these discrepancies had occurred because medicines were not routinely counted. Where people were prescribed ‘as required’ (PRN) medicines there were no PRN protocols in place. The provider was responsive and immediately put PRN protocols in place and has developed a new system to audit stock on a regular basis. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened. People told us they received their medicines at the correct times, 1 person told us, “They know exactly when to give me my medicines.”