Oakleigh Lodge

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 78 (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. We found robust systems and processes where incidents were investigated in a meaningful way to put measures in place to reduce or mitigate incidents re-occurring. Learning was shared with staff via team meetings and supervisions. We saw evidence of people reporting incidents to staff and appropriate and timely action was taken to keep people safe.

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, including when people moved between different services. Care plans showed people were supported to access services relevant to them such as referrals for new equipment. The registered manager assessed and mitigated risks to people whilst new equipment was ordered and ensured staff received appropriate training and support in the use of equipment from trained healthcare professionals.

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 we spoke with had received training and were extremely knowledgeable about safeguarding. Staff gave clear examples of the types of risk people faced such as harm and neglect. One person living at the home said, “[Staff Member] keeps me safe.”

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. Care plans contained detailed risk assessments for risks relevant to individuals. Care plans detailed the person’s involvement and where people could not make decisions about risks, care plans showed relative and medical professional involvement to mitigate risks whilst supporting independence. We observed staff following the guidance within care plans for identified risks such as moving and handling and staff supported people safely.

Improvements had been made since our last inspection. The registered manager now detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The home was exceptionally clean and maintained to high standard. We saw previous risks such as scalding from hot water had been reduced through regular temperature monitoring and servicing of equipment such as thermostatic mixing values which prevent water being dispensed above safe temperatures. Appropriate testing and checks were now in place for risk from Legionella infections. Legionnaires' disease is a serious type of lung infection caused by Legionella bacteria. Staff regularly completed descaling of water outlets in line with health and safety guidance.

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. People told us there were always enough staff to support them. Where unexpected staff absence occurred such as illness, there was a robust on call system for staff support. We saw evidence of the registered manager also covering shifts in an emergency. This helped reduce any need for agency staff and ensured people were supported by staff who knew their needs.

The provider thoroughly assessed and managed the risk of infection. They always quickly detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and always shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. We observed staff regularly washing their hands in line with best practice guidance. While care staff were responsible for cleaning tasks, there was a cleaning schedule in place to ensure all areas of the home were cleaned at times that did not impact on people’s care and support. There were named champions in infection prevention and control (IPC). An IPC champion is someone who has an interest and commitment to promoting excellent standards of infection prevention and control. A person living at the home had been supported to become an IPC champion and assisted staff to undertake environmental checks. We saw evidence of the person identifying areas of cleanliness concerns, recording actions and monitoring outcomes to ensure standards were met, maintained and people kept safe.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people and their relatives in planning, including when changes happened. We observed staff administering medicines at lunch time. The staff member followed the guidance within people’s care plans in relation to choices such as preferred drink to take their medicines with. The staff member took time to explain each medicine and seek the person’s consent prior to administering. Medication Administration Records (MARs) were consistently completed and audited by the registered manager. The medicine room was clean and tidy, and appropriate checks such as medicine stock levels and temperature checks were regularly completed. Where a recent medicine error had occurred, it had been highlighted immediately and the person’s safety assured. The staff member had been supported with additional training and lessons learned had been shared with all staff to reduce the risk of reoccurrence. Where people needed ‘as needed’ medicines there were clear protocols in place to guide staff on when and how to administer these medicines. Staff had the appropriate knowledge and tools in place to assess whether people were in pain if they were unable to verbally communicate this to staff.