Oaklodge Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

We were not assured leaders of the service were knowledgeable about the issues and priorities for the quality of the service. We were not assured staff and leaders had a good understanding of how to make improvements happen. Systems and processes in place to assess the quality and safety of the service were ineffective in identifying the concerns and shortfalls found during the CQC assessment. Further development was required by leaders to actively promote and encourage staff to raise concerns and promote the value of doing so. However, staff told us the provider and registered manager were approachable. Staff were given the opportunity to speak up and raise concerns during staff meetings and daily huddles.

This service scored 61 (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 Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Staff told us the provider visits the service monthly. One member of staff reported to us that they felt the provider was not responsive or helpful. The registered manager expressed their frustration with the difficulties they have faced in securing additional staff to meet people’s needs and keep them safe. They updated the provider via email about any outstanding issues or risk they identified but felt the provider did not always take the required action. Staff gave positive feedback about the registered manager. A staff member said, “The registered manager is good, helpful and has a kind nature, treats us well. Feel respected valued and listened to.” The registered manager held daily safety meetings with staff to update them about any risks or changes.

We were not assured leaders of the service were knowledgeable about the issues and priorities for the quality of the service. Although the provider visited on a monthly basis they had not identified the shortfalls found in peoples care and safety. Following our first site visit, some improvements had been made to care planning, food and fluid monitoring and to infection prevention and control processes. However, many issues remained that required further attention including fire safety concerns and some areas of the home remained visibly unclean and the furnishings and decoration was not to an acceptable standard.

Staff told us the provider and registered manager were approachable. A staff member told us, “[The registered manager] is very supportive and always approachable.” Staff had access to a whistleblowing procedure and told us they would use it if necessary. This enables workers to report certain types of wrongdoing. However, we were not assured staff felt confident to actively raise concerns about people’s care and support, as the shortfalls found during the assessment had not been recognised or reported by the staff. One staff member told us they did not always feel confident to report concerns as they felt this would be overstepping their role.

Staff were given the opportunity to speak up and raise concerns during staff meetings and daily huddles. The daily huddle is a short meeting that is held every day to prepare the staff for the day and share information. Further development was required by leaders to actively promote and encourage staff to raise concerns and promote the value of doing so.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

The registered manager carried out checks and audits including a daily walk around and observations of care and support provided. However, these were not effective in identifying the concerns found during the assessment and all the required improvements. Staff told us they regularly asked people who used services for their feedback. Staff and resident meetings took place to communicate changes and to seek further feedback. The provider carried out monthly visits to the service.

Systems and processes in place to assess the quality and safety of the service were ineffective in identifying the concerns and shortfalls found during the CQC assessment. Audits completed for infection control and the environment had failed to identify the concerns found which meant action was not taken to improve the quality and safety of the service. This placed people at potential risk of harm.

We did not look at Partnerships and communities during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We were not assured staff and leaders had a good understanding of how to make improvements happen. We were not assured staff were encouraged by leaders to contribute to improvement initiatives. Although the registered manager was able to describe actions they had taken following learning from falls and incidents, such as use of assistive technology to alert staff when people got out of bed or left their rooms. There was not always enough staff available to respond to and manage these risks.

The provider and registered manager did not have a continuous improvement and development plan in place prior to the assessment. Following the assessment and concerns identified, action plans were put in place to address these. Processes were in place to review learning from incidents. Accidents and incidents were recorded by staff in detail along with post-accident observations. However, learning and processes were not always effective in reducing further risk to people. Staff did not routinely record distressed behaviour so triggers could be identified, and solutions found to offer support. Whilst there was a system in place to gather feedback from people using the service and their relatives, we were not assured this involved developing and evaluating improvement and innovation initiatives.