Red Oaks Care Community

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

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

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 54 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

While some care plans included personal preferences and life histories, these were not consistently followed in practice. For example, one person’s care plan stated they should sit by a window to support sensory stimulation, but we observed them seated facing a wall for over two hours. Staff described this as behavioural but had not considered what immediate needs they have missed. This was isolating and did not reflect their assessed needs.
Staff were kind and responsive in the moment, and we saw examples of compassionate support when people were anxious or distressed. However, the inconsistencies in care planning and delivery meant people’s choices and preferences were not always respected.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

The provider worked with people and their families to deliver care that was generally joined-up and continuous. Staff knew people well and communicated effectively during handovers and daily meetings. Relatives told us they were kept informed about changes and felt involved in decisions.
There were examples of integration with external professionals, such as timely GP visits and dietician reviews. However, some care records contained contradictory information, particularly around repositioning, which could affect continuity of care. For example, a person’s mobility care plan stated they could walk short distances, whilst their falls risk assessment stated they required hoist transfers. The provider has since reviewed this person’s care plan once highlighted at this assessment.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider did not always give people and staff the information they needed in a clear and accessible way. For example, safeguarding and whistleblowing policies displayed in communal areas were incomplete and did not include details on how to raise concerns. Staff told us they would need to search online to find out how to report abuse.
Although communication care plans were in place and included preferences such as speech speed and use of glasses, the lack of accurate service-specific information limited people’s ability to make informed decisions or escalate concerns.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider listened to people and acted on their feedback. We saw staff engaging in conversations about local events and personal interests, and relatives told us they were consulted about care decisions.
Resident meetings were advertised, and some people were aware of them, although attendance was low. Staff were approachable and encouraged people to share their views.

The provider did not always make sure that people received the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Relatives told us they could visit freely, however we received feedback that people living upstairs at the service did not always have access to the same level of activities as those living downstairs. Staff worked with local healthcare professionals to ensure people could access services however, documentation did not always show timely updates or clear instructions for staff to follow. This lack of information placed some people at greater risk of harm compared to others.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

Policies supported equality and diversity, and staff understood their responsibilities under the Equality Act. Policies and procedures were in place to help ensure people’s rights were upheld, we found no evidence of discrimination within the workforce.

However, people’s experiences of care were not consistent. Some people had positive experiences of care and support whilst others did not experience the same standard of care. This created inequality in how people lived day to day. People’s experiences varied significantly depending on where they lived in the home and their level of cognitive ability. Downstairs was described as pleasant whilst upstairs was described as unpleasant and neglected with a lack of activities or stimulation. This disparity meant that some people were at risk of isolation and a reduced quality of life.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. For example, some care records included details about advanced decisions for end-of-life care. One person’s care plan contained clear instructions for funeral arrangements agreed with their family. Relatives told us they were involved in discussions about future care, and staff were aware of the importance of respecting people’s wishes.