Oaktree Hall & Lodge

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

People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse because there were effective systems in place. People were involved in decisions about managing risk and there were risk assessments in place which guided staff how to support people to stay safe, whilst respecting their choices. There were enough suitably skilled staff to meet people’s needs.

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.

People appeared relaxed and comfortable with staff. We did not observe any unsafe practices or inappropriate restrictions. People indicated they liked living at the home and raised no safeguarding concerns.

People told us they felt safe living at Oaktree Hall & Lodge. One commented, “Yes I feel safe and comfortable. Everything is alright. I would speak with one of the carers if I was concerned.” Relatives felt people were safe and confirmed they would feel confident raising any concerns.

The manager had knowledge of their responsibilities with regard to safeguarding people. There was good oversight of any safeguarding concerns and the senior management team were aware of the outcomes from these. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and who to report any concerns to. Staff told us they had received regular safeguarding training. They also received training in relation to the Mental Capacity Act.

The provider had effective systems and processes in place to make sure people were protected from abuse and neglect. The provider had an appropriate safeguarding policy and information was available about the local authority’s multi-agency safeguarding procedures. Records showed safeguarding issues had been investigated and action taken to mitigate any further risk. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We found the service was working within the principles of the MCA and if needed, appropriate legal authorisations were in place to deprive a person of their liberty. Any conditions related to DoLS authorisations were being met. Mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were made where required.

The provider had good systems for the management and oversight of risk. Individual risk assessments were in place, and most provided robust guidance for staff to be able to keep the person and staff safe. We noted one person’s care plan needed more detail about aspects of their care and health risks, but this was addressed with the manager during the inspection. The provider had effective processes to monitor any accidents, incidents and near misses, any injuries to people, complaints, medication errors and safeguarding issues. Accident and incidents were recorded on an electronic system and on the provider’s risk register. These were then analysed and rated according to risk. Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed and updated following any accidents or incidents. Where health conditions posed a risk to people, referrals were made to appropriate healthcare professionals for additional support and guidance.

In the main, we observed risks being managed and responded to appropriately. Staff were usually available to respond to people needs. In the one area of the care home we noted two examples where staff could have intervened more promptly, including responding to a spillage, but generally they were attentive.

Staff knew people well and were able to describe what support individual people needed to stay safe. Most staff we spoke with knew where risk assessments were stored and they confirmed risk assessments were reviewed and updated when needed. The manager was aware of the systems in place to manage risks to people. They also explained how they used best practice tools to assess individual risk, such as recognised tools to assess the risk of people developing pressure sores.

Relatives we spoke with felt that risks were safely managed. Any changes in people’s needs were reviewed and addressed appropriately and relatives told us they were kept informed of any changes. People who used the service felt risks were managed well. They provided us with examples of how they were involved in decisions about this. One person told us, “Yes, they allow me to take positive risks. The staff are good, as they allow me to use my stand aid then turn me around and help me to use it so that I can get into my wheelchair.”

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

During the site visit we observed sufficient staff to support people, and most staff appeared to be knowledgeable about people’s needs and how to deliver care effectively. People who were in their rooms received support promptly when required. We observed mainly positive interactions between staff and people.

There were safe recruitment processes in place to make sure all staff were suitably experienced, competent and able to carry out their role. Recruitment records we reviewed all contained necessary checks to ensure safe recruitment in line with the organisation’s policy. The provider had a dependency tool in place to assess people’s needs and the staffing levels required. This was reviewed on a regular basis. The rotas we reviewed were in line with the assessed dependency levels of people who used the service. Staff received training, supervision and appraisal which was appropriate and relevant to their role.

Staff told us there were usually sufficient staff to meet people's needs, although at times it was busy. They confirmed they had received a range of training. The manager showed us how they had oversight of staffing in the service. The provider had done a significant amount of work to recruit staff and the manager told us how they were working to improve staff retention. The manager also explained how they were improving the support for new staff, including ensuring they had a mentor. The provider was in the process of conducting a staff survey at the time of our assessment so the results had not yet been reviewed and fully analysed. The feedback so far showed some mixed views regarding the staffing levels.

People we spoke with confirmed there were enough suitable staff to support them when they required this. People spoke positively about the staff and the care they received. We were also told staff responded promptly to requests for care. One person told us, "Staff are always about, if I need them I press the buzzer and they are there.” Relatives told us, “(There) seems to be a lot of staff... I recognise a lot of the staff when I go in. No waits for attention” and, “When I’ve been there always seems to be adequate staff… All of them are okay.” Others told us the staff, “All seem capable” and, “They seem to know what they’re doing.”

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.