Oak Lodge 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

We assessed a total of 2 quality statements from this key question. We have combined the scores for these areas with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Our rating for this key question has remained the same. Overall, the provider had effective systems and processes in place to monitor the delivery of care people received. This included regular audits and oversight from the providers senior leadership team. We found some shortfalls related to medicines oversight which the providers systems had not identified, however leaders were responsive to our feedback. Staff told us they felt supported by a visible leadership team and the provider had networks and processes in place to support staffs overall wellbeing.

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 Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Overall staff spoke highly of the management team. Comments included, “I think we have good managers. They are fair and approachable, it’s easy to talk to them. They support you outside of work as well with your personal life which is nice”, [Registered manager] is good and [clinical deputy manager] honestly, is the best manager I've ever had. [They] support us, encourage us” and, “I think they make a good team. We have had a lot of clinical deputy managers come and go; I think [clinical deputy manager] is very good at her job and she gets on with the team well.” Staff told us the management team were approachable. One staff member said, “Yes, they always find time for you. If they’re busy, then they’ll give you a time to come back. They’re both very friendly.” The registered manager told us they valued staff wellbeing and promoted an open culture for staff to share any concerns.

The provider had a range of services accessible to staff to support their mental and physical wellbeing. Staff received regular communication and updates which included a daily heads of departments meeting, where information was shared amongst the teams for dissemination. Staff told us they found these meetings useful for getting updates on how people were and anything staff needed to be aware of.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Staff we spoke with were aware of some of the providers plans to improve and told us suggestions were listened to. One staff member said, “They have staff, relatives and resident meetings where different things are suggested. I did one of the relative meetings before and I handed the feedback to [registered manager]. During this meeting it was raised by one person that their relative would like more liver dishes on the menu. This was communicated with the kitchen and now this is on the menu.” Staff told us the management team were visible and present within the service. One staff member said, “Every time I turn around, [registered manager] is there. People say they never see management, but I think they need to consider that they have a lot of work to do in the office. [Clinical deputy manager] does a walk around every morning and [registered manager] walks around the home multiple times a day.”

The registered manager told us they were visible at the service. They said, “I do a walk round every day, I would like to think I'm visible, and the staff aren't backwards about coming to see me. Sometimes I will redirect them to [clinical deputy manager].” They also told us they felt supported by the provider and had regular calls with leaders where they could raise any concerns if they needed to.

Overall, the provider had effective systems and processes in place to monitor and review the quality of care received. The management team had a good oversight of the service and were visible. There was a range of audits and senior management oversight in place. This included daily weekly and monthly checks alongside scheduled provider audits. Records showed incidents and accidents were reported, investigated and lessons learned were shared and implemented with staff. Weekly clinical risk meetings took place with the nurses to review people’s needs. The service was supported by the providers leadership team with weekly and monthly visits from their internal quality team and the senior management team. Statutory notifications were made to CQC in line with regulations. Where we identified some shortfalls at this assessment around medicines optimisation, leaders of the service were responsive to our feedback and told us they would review and action learning. However, audits completed for medicines had not identified the concerns we found in relation to medicines at this assessment and improvements needed to be embedded.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.