Oakfield at Yardley Hastings

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 told us staff supported them to keep safe. The provider had systems and processes in place to safeguard people from abuse or harm. Staff understood their responsibility in keeping people safe. Further development was required in ensuring staff understood this to ensure potential safeguarding concerns were identified and reported appropriately. There was a clear understanding of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which was used in the best interest of the person. Staff were consistent in their approach in managing and mitigating risks to people. Risks to people had been identified and detailed within a risk assessment for staff to follow. However, these required further development to ensure they were person centred and based on people’s individual needs. People were supported by enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to ensure care was provided in a safe way that met their individual needs. People told us staff were available to support them when they needed it. Safe recruitment practices were in place. Staff received training appropriate and relevant to their role.

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 were supported to understand safeguarding and what being safe meant to them. People told us staff supported them to keep safe. People had access to information about safeguarding in an accessible, easy to understand format.

Staff understood their responsibility in keeping people safe. Staff told us how they would report safeguarding concerns and who they could speak to outside of the organisation. However, we were not assured all staff would recognise potential signs of abuse or neglect. Further development was required in ensuring staff understood this to ensure potential safeguarding concerns were identified and reported appropriately.

People appeared relaxed and comfortable around the staff supporting them. People happily approached staff and there was a good rapport between people and staff.

The manager had raised appropriate safeguarding concerns with the local authority and conducted safeguarding investigations, were required, with clear outcomes and actions taken. There was a clear understanding of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which was used in the best interest of the person. The provider had a system in place to ensure the appropriate authorisations were in place and people were supported in the least restrictive way possible.

People told us they felt safe. One person said, “Staff help me to be safe. If its fire, we know what to do. We stay outside till the police, or somebody, says go back inside.”

Staff told us they had access to people’s risk assessments and how they kept people safe, whilst enabling people to do things that matter to them. A staff member said, “I keep people safe by following the risk assessments, the people we support’s care plans and by having the knowledge about the person.”

Staff were consistent in their approach in managing and mitigating risks to people. For example, we saw staff sitting with a person who was at risk of choking, encouraging them to eat slower and take small mouthfuls. This was in line with the person's care plan and demonstrated staff understood people’s individual risks.

Risks to people had been identified and detailed within a risk assessment for staff to follow. However, these required further development to ensure they were person centred and based on people’s individual needs. Where a risk had been identified in relation to the way in which a person expressed their feelings, staff were seen to follow the guidance given. However, there was inconsistent recording of incidents by staff where a person’s expression of emotion may have had a negative impact on themselves or other people living in the service. The manager was in the process of addressing this with staff.

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

People were supported by enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to ensure care was provided in a safe way that met their individual needs. People told us staff were available to support them when they needed it. There had been a significant change in staff over the last several months, and some people had been unsettled by this, however, people told us they were getting to know the new staff better.

Most staff we spoke with felt there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. A new staff structure which was being introduced by the provider which would ensure a more consistent approach to staff support and oversight. There was a system in place for additional staff to be called upon at any time if required.

There were enough staff to provide the level of support people required. This included supporting people to access the community and participate in activities of their choice.

Safe recruitment practices were in place. Staff received training appropriate and relevant to their role. This included training in supporting people with learning disabilities and autism. Specialist training such as Epilepsy had also been provided. New staff were given the opportunity to shadow experienced members of staff when they first joined the service to enable them to get to know and understand people’s individual needs and wishes. This also gave people the opportunity to meet the new staff before being supported by them individually. Due to the recent high turnover in staff, people had not been allocated a keyworker. The manager told us this would be done once the new staff had settled in, and they identified who would be the best match with people taking into account their knowledge, skills, attributes and approach.

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.