Oakley Lodge Care Home (55)

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

Risks to people’s health and safety were assessed and mitigated where identified. The provider had robust recruitment practices in place. There were enough, suitably qualified staff that knew how to keep people safe.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Staff understood their safeguarding responsibilities. Staff told us they had mandatory training in this area and records confirmed this. Staff knew how to escalate any concerns, one staff member said, “If I had any concerns I would go to my manager, if I ever felt the manager wasn’t supporting me I would go to the safeguarding team”.

People were protected from the risk of harm and abuse. The provider had clear guidance in place for staff and reported any concerns to the local authority as required.

Relatives said their loved ones were protected from the risk of abuse. One relative told us, “The staff recognise when [relative] becomes upset, they know what to do . They know [relative] really well.

We observed staff support people discreetly and redirect people when they became upset or distressed.

Staff told us they were given the opportunity to read and contribute to people’s risk assessments. Staff were able to explain how they supported people to manage risks.

We observed staff being available to support people as needed.

The provider assessed the risks to the health and safety of people using the service. Risk assessments were person centred and provided clear guidance to staff on how to minimise any risks to people. Positive behaviour support plans were in place where needed, these were detailed, and person centred.

Relatives told us they felt their loved ones were safe. One relative said, “[Relative] is safe.” Another said, “They couldn’t do more for [relative], they love [relative] and [relative] loves them!”

We did not look at Safe environments during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Relatives told us there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. One relative said, “there are always lots of staff when I visit, never had a problem with getting hold of someone”.

Staff told us they received regular supervision with the management team which they found supportive. One staff member said, “We talk about training and how we found it. We discuss the residents and how they are doing, how to protect them. If we have any difficulties in our lives [Registered Manager] is very supportive. It is the best home, When I am here it feels like home.”

We observed there were enough staff on duty during the inspection. Staff were not rushed and took their time with people.

Staff were recruited safely. We reviewed 3 staff files. The provider had a robust recruitment process which included obtaining relevant reference and ensuring people had the required criminal records checks in place. There was a clear training plan in place to support staff knowledge and understanding. Staff were required to complete the care certificate and following successful completion were encouraged to complete further qualifications relevant to their roles.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.