Oasis Group (London) Limited

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. Systems were in place to safeguard people from abuse and to help ensure the care provided was safe. There were enough staff employed to meet people’s needs. People told us they felt safe using the service.

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.

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.

The provider had systems in place to help ensure people were protected from the risk of abuse. There were safeguarding policies in place covering both adults and children and the provider had a whistleblowing policy. This made clear staff could whistle blow to outside agencies if appropriate. Records showed that allegations of abuse had been reported to the local authority and CQC, in line with the providers policies. Where there had been allegations of abuse, or accidents and incidents, there had been learning from these to help ensure similar incidents did not re-occur. Staff had undertaken training about safeguarding and were aware of their duty to report any allegations of abuse. A member of staff told us, “If I suspect there is an abuse, first of all, what I need to do, is to report it to my boss.” People told us they felt safe with the staff. One person said, “I have got to know the carers well and feel safe with them. The office check in on me to make sure I am ok and satisfied with the care. The carers are very supportive, they check and remind me to take my medication.” Another person told us, “We get on. They [staff] understand I have soreness and they are careful and I let them know if it hurts and were."

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.

People were involved in managing risks. The risks people faced were covered in the initial assessment of needs which included input from people and relatives. Risk assessments were then developed from these initial assessments. They covered risks including moving and handling, medicines and the physical environment. Assessments were reviewed every six months with the involvement of people. The nominated individual told us they were reviewed sooner if there had been a significant change, such as a person requiring hospital treatment. This meant they were able to reflect the risks people faced as they changed over time. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about the risks people faced and how to support them in a safe way. People and relatives told us how the service supported people to be safe. A relative said, “[Person] is alive today because of the carers, we could have lost [person] a couple of years ago but the carer found them, called for an ambulance, contacted the office who then contacted family and when [person] was eventually discharged from hospital the carers were waiting for them at home to welcome them back. The carers have not only made an impact on [person’s] life, they have improved it and saved it.” Another relative said, “The carers we do have now are very good, they bring stuff to my attention if they have seen sores on [person] or if there are issues or changes to them. They are respectful and polite and they treat the rest of the family and our home with respect."

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

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.

Senior staff told us they had systems in place to help ensure staff were punctual for visits. They said when developing the staff rota, they tried to give staff visits that were geographically close to each other to minimise travel time between visits. There was an electronic monitoring system, where staff had to log in and out of every visit so the provider could tell if they were late or left early. Staff told us they had enough time to get from one person to the next. Senior staff told us they carried out unannounced spot checks on care visits, which included checking that staff arrived on time. We saw records of the spot checks which confirmed this. Most people and relatives told us staff were punctual and reliable. A relative said, “They [staff] are on time and stay the full time, they are amazing, and they always come in all weathers, rain, and snow. I have no concerns about the company or the carers.” A person told us, “The carers come on time, stay the full time, they never seem to be rushed, they always have time for me. They encourage me to have a bath and keep an eye on me.” Another person said, "I am amazed at how punctual they are every time. They stay the full 30 minutes every time and do everything I need them to do.” However, one person commented, “I know for a fact that the carers don’t stay for the full time they are supposed to, 20 minutes rather than 30 minutes.”

The provider had robust staff recruitment systems in place. Checks were carried out on prospective staff. These included proof of identification, employment references and a criminal record 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.

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