Oaklands Care Home

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 remained good.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Overall the provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Pre-assessments were carried out before people moved to the service so they could be sure they were able to meet the person’s needs. The registered manager said “Either me or the deputy manager do the pre-assessments. We take a much slower approach to it. We might assess over 2 days for example, at different times to see if people present differently.”

Most people’s relatives told us they were involved in pre-assessments and reviewing care plans. For example, one person’s relative said, “I am sure I have seen the care plan, since [name] has come out of hospital; they [staff] have reviewed it and made adjustments.” People’s relatives told us a member of staff carried out an assessment before the person moved to the service.

Staff told us they were kept informed about new people moving to the service and that they had access to care plans. One staff member said, “The plans should be reviewed monthly at a minimum or upon any changes. [Registered manager] is the main care plan writer, but she gets the information from the seniors, professionals and relatives.”

We reviewed a care plan for a person that had been at the service for some, who had a preference for thickener to be added to their drinks. However, staff we spoke with were not always clear about how much should be added and described two different consistencies of drinks they provided the person with. We raised this with the registered manager who told us the level of thickener used was the person’s own choice and not a clinical decision. However, there was a risk that this information was not documented clearly and was not fully understood by staff. Immediately after the inspection, the registered manager provided us with an updated nutrition plan for the person.

Care plans we looked at included a range of assessments covering people’s physical and mental health and well-being. People’s communication methods were outlined within their care plans to enable them to receive care and treatment which worked for them.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Care plans in relation to people’s health needs were comprehensive and provided information for staff such as how to support someone with contractures or someone with diabetes.

People’s nutrition and hydration needs were assessed and met. We spoke with a member of kitchen staff who showed us the menu, with several options and told us how they were kept up to date with people’s dietary needs. They told us “I go round each day and ask people what they want for lunch. Today is fish and chips or quiche and chips. Two people don’t like fish, but they enjoy egg, chips and beans. People do change their mind, and that's fine. I try to give people what they want.” We observed people being offered drinks and snacks on both days of the inspection, including ice creams and lollies because it was warm on both days. We observed lunch being served. The food looked and smelt appetising, and people told us the food was “good.” Portion sizes were specific to people’s preference and staff told us this was so people did not feel overwhelmed with a large plate of food.

Overall people’s relatives said they felt the food was of good quality and that people enjoyed it. One person’s relative said, “My relative says the food is nice. [Name] has gained a little weight.”

Nationally recognised assessment tools were used, including an escalation tool used to assess people’s clinical condition when people became unwell. Concerns were escalated quickly and acted on. Support from specialist teams was sought when required.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff told us they had good relationships with other healthcare professionals. For example, one staff member said “They’re brilliant. The girls from the care homes team are really good. We have regular district nurses and [name] from the older people’s mental health team (OPMH) is brilliant. They have got to know us all well and they trust what we say.”

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 needs for care and support.

Staff supported people with their health and wellbeing and referred them to other services as necessary. For example, records we looked at showed the service was in contact with the GP, the older people’s mental health team and the district nurses. People’s weight was monitored, and we saw the service supported people to lose weight as well as support others to gain weight.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met clinical expectations. Records showed staff monitored people’s health and liaised closely with other health professionals when needed.

One person told us, “I had a fall and staff have helped me to get my confidence back, and now I feel safer to leave my bedroom.” Another person’s relative said, “All I know is I my loved one is so much better since moving to Oaklands.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Overall, people told us staff asked for their consent before supporting them and respected their choices.

Staff had received training in mental capacity and consent. All staff we spoke with described how they ensured people were able to make choices. For example, one staff member said, “If someone makes a choice, no choice is the wrong choice. Everyone has the right to make a decision. We don’t just assume people don’t have capacity.”

During the inspection we saw and heard staff asking people for their consent and offering choices. For example, we saw staff asking people where they preferred to sit in the lounge and whether they wished to take part in the activities and saw that staff knocked on bedroom doors before entering.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). In care services, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty, and whether any conditions relating to those authorisations were being met. All legal applications had been made in accordance with DoLS. This meant people’s rights were fully respected. The registered manager kept a record and tracker of DoLS applications and authorisations.