Oakley Lodge Care Home (57)

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

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good: This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. For example, following a review of records, the provider had identified choices were not always being recorded consistently, they introduced ‘choice charts’, which the provider said had driven a positive change in staff behaviours when it came to promoting choice with people.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care. For example, the provider ensured an escort was offered, even if relatives attended appointments to ensure people were supported and information could be shared effectively.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Staff received appropriate training and understood their responsibilities in keeping people safe. A relative told us, “It’s very safe and there is 2-way communication which is very helpful. I can talk and they will listen and act on it if they can”.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. Where people experienced episodes of emotional distress, the provider had developed clear positive behaviour support plans which outlined how best to support people.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did

not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

For example, we found some radiators were uncovered and hot to the touch, increasing the risk

people could injure themselves. We also noted some areas of the environment were damaged.

In response to these concerns the provider took action to make these areas safe before the end

of our assessment.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Staff received regular supervision and training. Staff were recruited safely. There were enough staff to meet people’s needs. A relative said, “There are always staff around”.

The provider did not always assess or manage the risk of infection. For example, an audit

completed in December 2024 had identified a need to manage mould growth in some

bathrooms. On the first day of our assessment, we found excessive mould build up in shower

areas. Upon raising this with the service, they took immediate action and deep cleaned the

affected bathrooms prior to the end of our assessment.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs,

capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes

happened. The service worked in line with 'STOMP' principles (a project to stop the overuse of

psychotropic medicines) and could evidence a commitment to reducing unnecessary

psychotropic medication for those living with learning disabilities or autism.