HMP Oakwood

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

We assessed 2 quality statements in this key question. The provider had made sufficient progress to address the regulatory breaches found at our previous inspection and was no longer in breach.

We found the provider had made improvements to the care patients received, record keeping and staffing levels.

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

The judgement for Learning culture is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Safe key question.

At the previous inspection, we found records relating to the care of people with pressure ulcers, bedrails in place, who required hoisting or social care was poor. During this inspection we found significant improvements had been made.

People with wounds received a detailed wound assessment in good time. Records included a description of the wound and the individual treatment needs. People had a care plan in place and referrals to external healthcare providers were made when needed.

People with social care needs were cared for well. People told us they were supported by staff in the way they wished, spoke well of the care they received and the staff providing it. Records relating to social care were good. People had a care plan in place to guide staff and we saw some excellent examples of care planning.

Where people had bed rails in place the provider ensured systems were in place to promote their safe use. Bed rails were used only when needed and in line with the people’s views. In addition, risk assessments were used to help ensure people were safe.

At the time of the inspection there were no patients who required hoisting. However, the provider was able to demonstrate improvements to assessment and recording processes promoting safe care.

At the previous inspection, we found people requiring mental health care did not always have their needs met and records were poor. During this inspection we found the provider had made improvements.

An improved range of mental health interventions for people with primary care needs had been developed. A graduate mental health worker was responsible for arranging group sessions with people experiencing anxiety and depression. The mental health nurses saw people on a one-to-one basis and focussed on supporting people with skills such as emotional regulation and mindfulness.

A principal clinical psychologist had been recruited and recently commenced in post. Once settled in their role they planned to deliver the Empower mental health group as well as seeing some people on a one-to-one basis.

The mental health duty worker reviewed any new referrals, and any urgent need was responded to quickly. Most routine referrals were reviewed within the 5 day target. Any people deemed to meet the criteria to receive a mental health service were reviewed by the team at the weekly allocation meeting and added to a caseload.

Documentation and care planning had improved since the last inspection. We saw detailed electronic patient records which explained what had been discussed in each appointment. Care plans identified clear goals and were kept under review with people’s involvement. However, the next appointment date or desired frequency of appointments was not always clear. This meant there was a risk that patients may not always receive timely appointments. However, the provider rectified this issue during our inspection.

The judgement for Safeguarding is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Safe key question.

The judgement for Involving people to manage risks is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Safe key question.

The judgement for Safe environments is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Safe key question.

At our previous inspection, we found there were not sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people’s mental health needs.

Since our last inspection the provider had recruited into the vacant psychology position and the new member of staff had started in the weeks before our visit. The mental health team continued to rely on agency staff, but we saw that regular cover was provided to ensure that staffing remained at or above the planned levels.

Mental health staff had received care plan and documentation training following our previous inspection. The training emphasised the importance of clear documentation and involving people in planning their care. In addition, training was delivered on supporting people with more severe and enduring mental ill health through the Care Programme Approach.

The judgement for Infection prevention and control is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Safe key question.

The judgement for Medicines optimisation is based on the latest evidence we assessed for the Safe key question.