The Oaklea Trust (Durham & Northumberland)

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

The service was not consistently well-led. Governance processes were in place, but these failed to identify and remedy the issues found at this assessment, around safeguarding, MCA, recruitment, medicines and people’s personal finances. Improvements to MCA had been recommended by a partner agency in May 2024 but limited action had been taken to address this. This resulted in a breach of regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities). The service is supported by 2 registered managers, although each was knowledgeable about their area of the service neither had full oversight of the service. The management team were open and approachable and acted on feedback given at this assessment around standardising MCA and finance practices. All people, relatives and staff gave positive feedback about the management of the service and the support they received. They told us there was a positive culture and they felt confident to raise any concerns. People, relatives and staff were asked for their feedback, and this was used to develop the service. The provider invested in a range of initiatives to support staff wellbeing and worked hard to promote the values of the service at every level in the organisation. Staff attended forums to share best practice, and people were active members of their local communities.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Management told us there was a shared strategy and vision, that supported a person-centred culture that promoted people’s rights. The Nominated Individual told us values were embedded throughout the organisation, “As a senior team we think about does this fit with our culture, our vision and values” and “we’ve done a lot of work on Oaklea group family culture”. Staff told us the culture was positive, proactive and person centred. This reflected the registering the right support, right care, right culture, best practice values. Management told us they had very few concerns or complaints raised about the service, they received mainly positive feedback and were responsive to any issues raised with them. Feedback they had collected from professionals was positive.

We could not always be assured processes supported the vision and culture of the organisation because of the handling of safeguarding concerns. The provider set out it’s values and expectations of staff in policy and in meetings. Staff were aware of the provider’s expectations and were offered opportunities to feedback their views of the service.

Staff told us they had confidence in team leaders, the registered manager and the wider organisation. Staff felt that these leaders and the wider organisation treated that compassionately. However, we found issues during this assessment regarding the leadership and oversight of the service, for example in relation to safeguarding concerns.

Checks made by the management team did not identify the issues we found at this assessment. Processes did not always promote consistent leadership and varied between the houses we visited. There were 2 longstanding registered managers who knew people well. There were legally responsible for the service, but did not both have oversight of all aspects of the service. We discussed this with the Nominated Individual who told us they would consider how oversight was arranged.

Staff told us felt confident to raise concerns with the management team and these would be listened to and acted upon. The manager told us they asked for staff feedback and would address concerns raised with them.

The provider had policies and systems in place, which aimed to foster a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and that their voice would be heard. We found that the provider had not always acted robustly when concerns had been shared with them. We have reflected this in our judgements in Safe.

The management team told us staff completed equality and diversity training, and they employed and supported a diverse workforce.

Training, policy and procedures were in place to support equality, diversity and inclusion.

The oversight of the service was not robust and did not identify all the issues found at this assessment. The management team told us there was a quality assurance system in place and that they completed regular audits of the service. These audits had identified the need to work with landlords to ensure people’s homes met their future needs. However, they had not identified that further work was needed to improved MCA/DoLS processes, recruitment, financial processes or the response to safeguarding concerns.

Processes were in place to check on the quality and safety of the service, but these were not always effective. Audits had been completed covering key areas such recruitment, staff performance, finances and people’s quality of life. The provider had not notified CQC of all allegations of abuse or of a police incident. Audits involved different levels of leaders within the organisation doing both remote checks and visits to people’s homes. They included people's views and experiences. The Registered Managers and Nominated Individual told us they would act on our feedback to ensure systems around MCA and finances were more consistent.

People and relatives told us staff and managers were accessible, approachable and worked in partnership with them. A relative told us, “The main person would be any of the house staff, they are always open to have a conversation. They would always listen to our concerns. The manager is always approachable and happy to chat.” People and relatives told us other partners were involved when people required support from other agencies and people were supported to be part of their local community.

Feedback from partners was mixed. Partners told us people received good support. However, one partner told us they felt there were some issues with the culture at the service due to the failure to recognise safeguarding allegations. One partner had recognised some need for improvement around MCA records. The provider had collected positive feedback from visiting professionals. For example, one professional had fed back to management, ‘I would like to thank you for your excellent professionalism and robust communication over the past year. We have worked through several complex situations together with great success for the people we serve. I feel the working partnership between [agency] and Oaklea management, staff and service users has grown significantly, long may it continue.’

Processes were in place to support working in partnership and with communities. People’s care records demonstrated effective partnership working over a range of health and wellbeing areas.

There were systems for learning, improvement and innovation. However, there was limited evidence of learning and reflection on action taken when concerns were raised with the service, especially considering later involvement from external agencies. The nominated individual and registered managers told us about networks they were part of internally and externally to share learning and good practice. The management team told us the provider had a strong focus on getting people into work and developing people’s skills for this. They told us about schemes to promote this in other areas that they hoped would also be rolled out locally.

Development plans were in place, but they did not address all quality issues in the service. Accidents and incidents were reviewed, and lessons learnt were shared with staff. There were some positive examples of learning and developing the service in terms of improving people’s individual outcomes. For example, one person told us they learned Makaton to better communicate with people they shared a house with. They told us, "In lock down we learned Makaton together on zoom, it was hard." The provider was working closely with landlords to ensure accommodation met people’s future needs. The provider had collected feedback for a professional about how they had successfully worked together to improve service outcomes, a professional told them, ‘Actions were completed, and creative solutions were implements which resulted in better formal procedures for communication and improved outcomes for the customers and stakeholders.’