Archived: Waltham House Limited Also known as Oasis Care

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 58 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The provider assessed people’s needs before delivering care. People and staff told us the registered manager discussed their care with them and kept up to date with how their care was delivered, their needs and preferences. However, care plans lacked detail and reviews were not clearly dated. This meant people were not fully protected from risk because although initial assessments were completed, the absence of dates on care plan reviews meant we could not be assured staff were using accurate, current guidance. We could not be assured people’s care reflected their most recent needs and preferences.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

People’s preferences including what mattered most to them was incorporated in to care delivery because staff knew people well and people told us their individual needs and preferences were met. However, there was a lack of detail in care records which meant we could not be assured staff were using accurate and current guidance.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs when people moved between different services.

Staff used a mobile messaging app to communicate information with each other. Staff told us they could speak with the registered manager if they needed support. Comments from staff included, “We have a lovely team they keep all up to date with everything, the team is brilliant right now” and “Excellent, we are all on the chat”. Staff new people well and people told us they worked well together, however, care plans were lacked detail and risk assessments were not in place. This meant we could not be assured that people’s current needs were being met, and if they moved between services the information may have been out of date putting people at risk of not receiving the correct treatment and support.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future need for care and support.

People had access to health professionals when needed, for example district nurses and social workers. Staff told us how they made referrals for people. People’s independence was actively encouraged, and they had a choice in what they wanted to do to support their own wellbeing. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. Staff, people and relatives gave examples of how people were supported to make choices including what meals they would like and how they would like their personal care provided. Comments included, “They talk to me, ask if there is anything else they can do for me. I just tell them.” and “They do prepare it and sit with [Name] to encourage [Name] to eat, they record food intake and drinks”.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

People and relatives said they had been involved in their care, and comments included, “[My relative] has got a care plan. Each day when they come, they sign in and out and write exactly what they have done. It tells me what they have done” and “Little things they notice, they always ask ‘’how are your legs today.” Although we found people’s immediate needs were met because staff knew people well, we could not be assured there was a robust system in place to monitor and improve people’s outcomes due to the lack of detail on care plans.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

We received positive feedback from people and relatives about the support people received from staff. People told us they were routinely offered choice and control over how they wanted to spend their day. Staff understood the need to gain consent before carrying out care and treatment.