Oakley Lodge Care Home (55)

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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 66 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. For example, where a person had been emotionally distressed, the service had reviewed all documented information and identified the foods they were eating had contributed to this. Following supporting the person to make some dietary adjustments, their wellbeing had improved.

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. A relative told us in relation to their experience of a person moving to the service, “They did everything really well. First of all, [Person] went for some tea visits and then stayed for lunch and then [Person] moved and settled in really well, [Registered Manager] is very pleased and so am I, it’s been really good for [Person], they are much happier and always smiling.”

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They 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 service shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Staff had received safeguarding training and could tell us who they could report concerns to externally if needed. A relative felt the service was, “Fantastic, very safe and very caring, I can talk to them anytime and they actually said to us; Tell us if anything is wrong, we want to know.”

We found people’s care plans were not always up to date in relation to risks they could experience such as those related to emotional distress and mobility. In response to our feedback, the service updated people’s care and risk management plans.

The service did not always make sure equipment, and facilities supported the delivery of safe care. We identified some environmental risks such as excessive gaps in fire doors, a ramp in a person’s room which had not been appropriately secured and sharp metal in the garden which could cause harm if a person fell onto it. In response to these concerns the provider took action to make these areas safe before the end of our inspection.

The service 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 told us they received regular supervisions that were supportive. Staff schedules showed enough staff were deployed to promote people’s safety. A relative said, “There are always enough staff when we have been, always someone to talk to as well.”

The service did not always assess or manage the risk of infection effectively. Although an audit completed in December 2024 had identified a need to manage mould growth in some bathrooms, on the first day of our inspection we found this had not yet been actioned. Upon raising this with the service, they took immediate action and deep cleaned the effected bathrooms. A relative said, “Everything is clean and tidy and most of all they really care.”

The service ensured that medicines and treatments were safe and tailored to individuals' needs and preferences. The service worked in line with 'STOMP' principles and could evidence a commitment to reducing unnecessary psychotropic medication for those living with learning disabilities or autism. A relative said, “Big improvement from [previous care home]. They have even reduced [Person’s] anxiety medications which is a really good sign.” Regular audits were conducted to guarantee safe medication practices.