Red Oaks Care Community

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to dignity and respect.

This service scored 55 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People were not always treated in a way that respected their privacy and dignity. For example, we saw 1 person’s bedroom door had a hole where the door handle had been replaced. This provided a view into their personal and private space. People were expected to receive care in an environment that was unclean and poorly maintained, which did not demonstrate a valuing approach to them.

One person’s care and support plan stated owing to their sensory needs they should be supported to face a window which could provide sensory stimulation. However, we saw this person seated for a prolonged period facing a wall with no visible stimulation. This was isolating and undignified for this person. People’s individual experiences of their accommodation and in some instances their care at Red Oaks Care Community presented an undignified approach and put people at the risk of psychological harm.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

While some care plans included details such as hobbies, communication needs and dietary preferences, these were not consistently followed. For example, there was no clear guidance on how a person who could not verbalise pain would communicate pain or discomfort. This meant the person could remain in pain for a prolonged period, causing unnecessary distress and reducing their quality of life.

Staff demonstrated kindness and familiarity with residents during interactions, but the physical environment and lack of personalised adjustments hampered efforts to provide person-centred care.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, choice and control. Although care plans recorded preferences such as clothing choices and daily routines, these were not consistently respected. Some people reported being taken to bed without being asked, while others said they could choose when to shower or watch television. One person told us about the environmental limitations, such as their room layout and lack of adaptive equipment, which further restricted independence. People were offered some opportunities to make choices in their daily lives, such as selecting meals, taking part in activities and, at times, choosing when to receive personal care. However, these positive examples were not consistent.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. People received emotional support at times of upset. We saw 1 person experiencing anxiety and distress staff responded immediately and reassured this person who visibly calmed and continued with their activity. We saw another person required staff support for a prolonged period. This support was provided in a compassionate and sensitive way easing the person’s emotional discomfort.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

All the staff members we spoke with told us they felt supported by the provider and were encouraged to raise any concerns or issues in a timely way. They described the deputy manager as approachable and said their views were welcomed. Staff reported access to training and supervisions, and felt the team worked well together. One staff member said, “It does not feel like a job, it feels like a family here,” reflecting a positive and inclusive culture that prioritised staff welfare. Staff members felt the provider’s policies and procedures supported their individual wellbeing.