Oakwood Bungalows

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

People were safe and protected from avoidable harm. Systems were in place to manage safeguarding incidents, and staff were trained in safeguarding people from abuse. Risk assessments were in place to reduce people's risk of harm. However, further improvements were required to ensure people consistently received safe care and support. Care plans provided staff with an overview of people's care needs. Enough trained staff were deployed, and staff received regular supervision and training. People received their medicines as prescribed.

This service scored 72 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Relatives confirmed since the new management team had been in place they were kept informed of any changes in their family members needs or of any incidents. They knew who to speak to regarding any issues and felt things were improving under the new management team. Relatives felt able to raise concerns, a relative said, “I would raise concerns. They’ve got records of my concerns and are dealing with them.”

Leaders were open, transparent and not afraid to admit when things went wrong or required improvement. Staff considered risks and when incidents occurred staff and leaders worked together to reduce the risk of reoccurrence. Leaders recently developed a new way of recording incidents to allow them better oversight making the system easier for staff to understand.

Leaders had made improvements ensuring concerns and incidents were recorded, investigated and reported appropriately. At the time of the assessment changes were still in their infancy and were not fully embedded. Duty of Candour policy was in place and leaders understood how to apply it in practice.

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.

People and their relatives felt safe at Oakwood Bungalows. One person said, “I have lived here for a very long time, and I love it. I have no concerns but if I did, I’d speak to [manager’s name].”

Leaders and staff understood their responsibilities to report safeguarding concerns and knew what to do if they had concerns about abuse or neglect. A staff member said, “I would report any incidents of safeguarding to the team leader or the manager.”

We saw staff were supporting people safely with all aspects of care.

The service had made improvements and is no longer in breach of regulations. Staff had completed whistleblowing and safeguarding training and knew how to raise any concerns they had. Leaders confirmed lessons had been learnt from concerns around incidents being recorded incorrectly and worked alongside other agencies about this. The language used to record incidents when supporting people who displayed distress had now improved. The provider had developed a more effective system for recording and reporting safeguarding incidents. More time was needed to ensure the new system is fully embedded and always followed by staff.

Relatives confirmed their family members were well settled at the home and risks were managed to keep them safe. A relative said, ‘[person name] goes out regularly there are no restrictions.”

Leaders and staff were knowledgeable about risks to people. They had access to their care plans and risk assessments. Leaders involved people and when appropriate, their representatives in completing and reviewing their risk assessments. Staff felt their training equipped them with skills to help people with reducing risks, for example managing distressed behavior.

Staff supported people in a positive way, in line with their care plans minimising any emotional discomfort. Staff took proactive actions to make sure people were relaxed and comfortable. When people communicated their needs, emotions or distress, staff managed this in a positive way. Protecting their rights, dignity and maximised learning for the future about the causes of their distress. For example, we saw staff supporting people to engage in activities they enjoyed. This included watching their favourite videos or going to the local shop, to reduce the risk of their mood deteriorating.

The service had made improvements and is no longer in breach of regulations. People were kept safe by staff regularly reviewing and updating their risk assessments as needs, interests, and activities changed. Risk assessments were in place to support people to be as independent as possible. Risk assessments were now in place for the use of emollient creams. However further improvements were required as these risk assessments lacked detail in relation to making sure people consistently received safe care and support in this area. We discussed this with leaders who agreed to add more detail to the risk assessments for emollient cream use. There was a restraint policy in place to guide staff to only use restraint as a last resort. In a way that is lawful, for legitimate purpose, safe and necessary. There were processes to ensure that approach to imposing restrictions on people was proportionate. People’s behavioural support plans were tailored to their individual needs and included information about triggers of distress and positive way of supporting people.

Relatives confirmed the environment was well maintained. A relative said, “It’s all spotless. Recently the home has undergone refurbishment.”

Staff had the facilities and equipment to meet people’s needs. Maintenance staff were employed and received adequate training to keep the premises safe. Leaders completed regular environmental audits to make sure the environment was safe. Leaders had plans in place to further improve the communal areas by addressing some cosmetic issues at the home. Staff considered people’s sensory needs when designing and decorating the home interior. For example, where a person pulled things off the walls, the television in their bedroom had been attached to the wall in a way that prevented them from hurting themselves or others.

People were cared for in a safe environment that was designed to their needs. Equipment used to deliver care and treatment was suitable for the intended purpose and regular maintenance checks were completed.

There were arrangements to monitor the safety of the premises through regular safety checks. The service had made improvements and is no longer in breach of regulations. Measures were in place to protect people from the risk of fire. Fire drills were now taking place regularly and staff had completed fire safety training. Leaders put contingency plans in place, in case of unprecedented events such as adverse weather conditions, or outbreaks ensuring continued service delivery.

Relatives and professionals felt there were enough staff. A professional told us, “I use to see a turnover of staff. However, it feels like this has improved and I have started to see the same staff now.”

Staff felt there were enough staff and that they were adequately trained for their role. For example, all staff completed Non-Abusive Psychological and Physical Intervention (NAPPI) training to help them effectively work with people to support their emotional wellbeing and behaviour. Staff at all levels felt well supported by leaders, this included receiving appraisals and support to develop.

On the day of our site visit there were appropriate staffing levels and skill mix to make sure people received safe, care that met their needs. People who needed 1:1 care and support throughout the day, received it.

There were robust and safe recruitment practices to make sure that all staff were suitably experienced, competent and able to carry out their role. Recruitment processes were fair and ensured there was no disadvantage based on any specific protected equality characteristic. Staff rota was completed in advance to ensure suitable staffing levels. Leaders had an effective system to ensure that regular supervisions and appraisals were completed with staff.

People and relatives raised no concerns about infection control. They confirmed staff used personal protective equipment (PPE).

Staff completed regular cleaning to ensure the environment was kept clean and hygienic. Leaders audited the cleaning of the home by completing regular audits. Staff completed relevant training, including food hygiene training to ensure they followed safe practices. Staff understood their responsibilities around infection prevention and control.

On the day of our site visit, the home was clean and hygienic. Staff were taking proportionate precautions to reduce the risk of spreading infection. For example, wearing PPE, including face masks and washing and sanitising hands regularly.

The provider had systems and processes to assess and manage the risk of infection. Audits were completed to support management in identifying any areas of concern and to drive improvements as required. We reviewed the audit for September 2024 where shortfalls had been found, actions to address these were recorded.

Relatives felt medicines were handled safely. People were supported to take their medicines in a safe way by staff who were trained.

Trained staff, mainly team leaders were responsible for the management and administration of medicines. Leaders were working towards extending this training opportunity to the wider team of care staff. Staff followed polices and people’s care plans when administering medicines. Staff knew what to do when people refused medicine or if an error was made. Staff involved people in decisions about their medicines, for example by asking if they required pain relief.

Processes were in place to assess and review people’s medicines. People’s medicines were appropriately prescribed, supplied and administered in line with relevant legislation. Medicine systems were organised electronically, and people were receiving their medicines when they should. The provider followed safe protocols for the receipt, storage, administration and disposal of medicines. Protocols were in place for ‘as required’ medication (PRN) which gave staff clear guidance on when the medication should be administered. Some people received their medicines covertly, this means medicines were administered in a disguised format. This was carried out in line with the Mental Capacity Act.