Oak House

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 this inspection the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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.

Relatives told us that concerns raised were acted on promptly by the deputy manager or registered manager. One person said, “staff are nice here and keep me safe”. Staff were confident on raising any concerns and the steps they would follow regarding whistleblowing. Systems were in place to review incidents/accidents by the registered manager and positive behaviour support practitioner (PBS).

The service worked with people and healthcare professionals to ensure needs and preference were understood and acknowledged. Staff were knowledgeable of people’s needs and were able to share information that healthcare professional needed to know in order to maintain safe systems of care. We received positive feedback from healthcare professionals who worked with the service and relatives. One relative said, “The transition was really smooth.”

People felt safe living at Oak House, one person told us, “The staff are kind to me, and I like living here.” Staff were knowledgeable of the process of how to recognise potential harm or abuse and how to raise any concerns. Staff received training in safeguarding. Safeguarding concerns had been reported, logged and details were clear in relation to actions and outcomes. Where people lacked capacity to make their own decisions, appropriate application of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were made to protect people’s rights.

People were actively involved in their care and were able to make decisions about their day to day lives. Care plans were developed to be personalised and detailed to people’s individual needs. PBS plans were clear and detailed of how to support people using the least restrictive practices, staff were trained in de-escalation techniques.

The environment was clean and free from clutter. The communal areas had clear signage and personalised décor such as a family tree with handprints and photos of the people that lived at Oak House. Fire processes were in place and staff were clear on how to evacuate the service if needed. Equipment was clean and well maintained. Peoples’ rooms were personalised, people told us they were supported to tidy and clean their rooms.

The service had systems in place control the risk of infection. Staff were supplied with personal protective equipment and were knowledgeable of the infection, prevention and control measures and received training in relation to this. The laundry room was tidy and there was a clear system in place.

The service had systems in place control the risk of infection. Staff were supplied with personal protective equipment and were knowledgeable of the infection, prevention and control measures and received training in relation to this. The laundry room was tidy and there was a clear system in place.

The service made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. People received their medicines on time, as prescribed and they were stored and administered following best practice guidance. We found, however, there were some discrepancies in the recording of ‘opening and use by dates’ on medications. We raised this with the registered manager, who confirmed it would be reviewed and ensure staff followed required process. Staff received medication training and had regular competency assessments. Audit systems were in place with oversight from regional management and were well managed.