Oaklands (Essex)

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

We did not look at all quality statements for Safe at this assessment. The service was safe. This rating uses some scores from the previous inspection. The service followed robust recruitment procedures and enough staff were employed. Care staff completed appropriate training and their competency was regularly checked. People had care plans and risk assessments in place.

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.

People told us they felt they could make complaints and would be listened to. The home turnaround manager told us they operate an open-door policy and encourage feedback from staff to develop safe and effective practices. Observation records are completed by staff and relatives to provide open and honest feedback about things they have observed in the home. The turnaround manager then reviews and looks for learning.

There were processes in place to record incidents, complaints, and compliments, the turnaround manager was in the process of embedding administrative systems to streamline records and make it easier to see when things happened, action taken, and lessons learnt. Lessons learnt were discussed during staff meetings, enabling staff to reflect and share ideas of how to improve things further.

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.

A family member said, “My [relative] is safe, [relative] feels secure, there are a couple of carers [relative] adores having a connection with, I am happy.” A service user said, “I feel safe, staff are always around, I had had no falls or incidents.” Staff treated people well, with kindness and attention. People were not unnecessarily restricted, we observed people freely moving around the home and accessing the courtyard gardens. There were positive interactions between staff and people.

Staff could identify signs of possible abuse or neglect and were aware of their responsibilities. Staff told us how they would recognise someone may be at risk and signs to look out for. One staff member said, “I would look out for changes in a person. We safeguard by ensuring equipment is safe and we look out for bad care and unkind behaviour. I would report concerns.” Another said, “I would whistleblow, I have reported concerns to the manager and felt the concerns were addressed quickly.”

The home is being managed by a turnaround manager who has dealt with safeguarding concerns in retrospect, after it was identified falls and matters of concern were not externally reported by previous leaders. It was clear that the management team wanted to address this and have put in place systems to ensure that incidents are reported, investigated and lessons learned. The provider had a clear safeguarding policy in place and guidance for staff on how to raise concerns.

Families were aware of health-related risks such as weight loss, falls and skin integrity. Families told us of measures put in place to reduce risk such as doctor visits and nutrition supplements. Families told us they are involved in important decisions about peoples care and treatment. A service user said, “Staff are very good, I am not rushed.”

Staff knew people’s individual risks and how to support them safely. Staff were able to identify those at risk of falls and those who needed additional support at mealtimes.

Staff supported people to remain safe and well and were aware of potential risks. For example, we saw a staff member patiently encouraging one person to eat lunch, they offered a variety of different options including foods not on the menu. The kitchen staff had systems in place to ensure that they were aware of allergies and special dietary requirements. Risk assessments are linked in to care plans. The manager ensured health and safety and maintenance checks were regularly completed and appropriate certification was in place. Personal emergency evacuation plans and fire safety measures were in place.

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

One person said, “It is lovely here, I think there is enough staff.” A relative said, “Their care is outstanding on a bad day and when residents are shouting, the staff are so reassuring and ask them what is wrong, how can we help, they talk to them like they are human beings.” Another family member said, “It is a lovely home, the carers every single one are brilliant, very gentle, caring and thoughtful carers.”

The manager told us the home is in a position not to need the use of agency staff. There are career pathways for those with the desire and skills to progress. A staff member said, “I am happy working at Oakland, it is a nice place.”

The care we observed on the day was attentive, dignified and person centred. We observed manual handling, activities, meals, and other interactions. We observed people being given visual lunch options and assisted to eat at their own pace. We observed medicines being given in a safe and appropriate manner.

Staffing levels were monitored by the manager and there were clear systems in place to ensure safe staffing in the event of any emergencies. Staff training was reviewed and addressed additional training needs in relation to people’s needs and risks. Staff were mostly up to date with training. Staff were recruited following a robust recruitment process and a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check. DBS provide information including details about convictions and a Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) check.

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.

Staff were able to explain practises to manage peoples medicine and reduce risk of errors. Staff were aware of peoples rights to decline medicine and best practise to support this. Medicines were stored safely. Staff completed appropriate records when supporting people with their medicines and there were regular audits in place. ‘When required’ and controlled drugs were managed in a safe way. The provider had a medicines management policy and staff’s competency was assessed.