Oaklands Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

This is the first assessment for this registered service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 71 (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 shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The provider demonstrated a clear shared direction and culture that placed people at the centre of their care. Conversations with the registered manager showed they shared these values and was committed to ensuring people were treated with dignity and respect, recognised as individuals, and supported to live happy, fulfilled lives.

These values were embedded in practice. We saw evidence people were supported to personalise and decorate their rooms and were involved in decisions around purchases of communal items. People were also encouraged to contribute to choices about meal options.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

Most people we spoke with told us the managers were approachable and caring. One person told us, “The registered manager is a good [gender]. They have never said no to anything I’ve asked for.” Another person told us, “The registered Manager is approachable. They ask what we want.” However, 1 person felt the service was not ran well.

Managers promoted equality, diversity, and inclusion across the service, making sure people’s rights were respected and staff were treated fairly. Staff said managers involved them in how the service was run and were understanding when they had personal issues that were impacting on their wellbeing. The registered manager gave us some examples of how they had supported staff during periods of personal difficulties. This meant staff felt supported, included, and able to carry out their roles effectively, which had a positive impact on people using the service.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The provider had a whistleblowing policy in place, and staff knew how to access it and understood their responsibility to raise concerns where they identified poor practice, unsafe care or behaviour that did not reflect the provider's values. Staff were able to describe the processes available to them for reporting concerns and told us they felt confident doing so.

Staff and residents consistently told us they felt able to speak up and were confident any concerns raised would be listened to and acted upon appropriately by the management team.

Daily ‘huddle’ meetings provided regular opportunities for staff to discuss issues affecting people using the service and to raise any immediate concerns. In addition, regular staff meetings and supervision sessions gave staff dedicated time to reflect on their work, discuss challenges and seek guidance from managers.

However, during the assessment, we observed an instance where the location manager anticipated a person may provide negative feedback to us and offered explanations for why they considered the person's views might be negative and sought relative feedback to counter argue their points. This indicated this person may not be believed when they spoke up which did not align with the providers visions and values.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

There was a positive and inclusive culture within the staff team. Staff told us they were treated fairly and felt comfortable discussing their individual needs with managers. Staff spoke positively about the support they received from management and described an open environment where they felt comfortable raising concerns or discussing their needs. One staff member told us, “Everyone has the same flexibility and support offered to them. Colleagues have support with child care, family emergencies etc. I have no concerns.” Another staff member shared, “[Name] always praises me, I have always had supervisions and was approached and encouraged to step up, I was pushed to meet my potential.”

The provider had defined responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and governance arrangements in place. These were used to monitor the quality of care and support provided. The provider gathered information about risks, performance and outcomes and took action when issues were identified.

A range of audits were completed, including audits of care plans, risk assessments, medicines and infection prevention and control. However, despite these governance processes, concerns including call bell response times and manual handling practices were identified during the first day of our assessment which had not been effectively addressed. Following our feedback, the provider took action to address the concerns identified.

There were regular quality assurance surveys for people, relatives, staff and stakeholders to provide feedback on the service delivery. These surveys were analysed and actions put in place where needs were identified.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

As noted previously in the report there was clear evidence external health care services were involved with the care and support of residents. We saw evidence of involvement of external organisations to provide information and support. For example, legal support regarding lasting power of attorney (LPO). Feedback from the GP was positive, highlighting referrals made were necessary and timely. The provider encouraged engagement from the local community inviting people to summer fayre’s, involving local schools to perform and sing for residents and involvement with the local church. The provider used social media platforms to share information about activities within the home and to build links in ascertaining support from local business.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people.

Effective quality assurance systems were in place, including a programme of internal audits which were used to identify areas for development. Where issues were identified, action was taken to address them and improve the quality and safety of the service.

The registered manager and location manager was responsive to feedback received during the assessment and acted promptly to make required improvements. For example, damaged flooring was repaired and replaced, a damaged bathroom door was replaced, window restrictors were changed to tamper proof and the layout of communal areas was reviewed and rearranged to better meet people's needs. Following feedback shared by people regarding delays in call bell response times during the night, the provider also took steps to review and update the call bell system to enable greater monitoring and oversight.

Feedback from the local authority quality assurance team was positive and indicated the provider was proactive in responding to areas identified as requiring improvement. They told us the provider engaged constructively with feedback and took appropriate action to address concerns and strengthen service delivery.

Overall, the provider used information from audits, stakeholder feedback and external scrutiny to inform service development and improve outcomes for people.