Oaklands Care Home

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The service was moving from paper care plans to an electronic system, and so we looked at examples of both care plan formats. The plans we looked at were detailed and informed staff of people’s choices and preferences about how they wanted to be supported. Plans for people who might experience periods of anxiety or agitation included information for staff on how to try and support the person without the need for the use of medicines. The use of music and people’s preferred music genres were included. Any known triggers were listed.

Care plans in relation to people’s health needs were informative. For example, some people had contractures and plans informed staff how to manage this following advice from the physiotherapist. Staff we spoke with were able to tell us how they me people’s needs and told us they had access to people’s care plans if they were unsure. One staff member said “Information about people’s choices is the care plan. I read the plan to make sure I know what the residents like. If they drink tea normally, I will still offer them coffee as they may want to make different choices. You shouldn’t assume they always want the same.”

We saw people living with dementia had memory boxes by their bedroom doors, which could be used by people, their relatives and staff to provide stimulation and interest. The boxes contained items which were linked to the person’s life. Overall, people’s relatives told us they felt staff knew people well. One person’s relative said, “When [name] moved here, the staff asked me for [name’s] life story, and they know what music [name] likes and the job they did.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. The workforce was consistent. At the time of the inspection, we were told no agency staff were used.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish a continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. People’s relatives told us their loved ones were referred to relevant health and social care professionals when required. Staff told us and we observed how they referred people for GP review. Staff could contact the GP surgery at any time if they had any concerns or questions, alongside weekly calls. We saw records in place of when people were reviewed by health professionals.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s communication needs were assessed and when people experienced difficulties with hearing or speech for example, the care plans we looked at were informative and clear. One staff member said, “[Name] is an example with repositioning. Sometimes, [name] will grimace and make a noise which informs us [name] is in pain.”

There was dementia friendly signage throughout the building to help orientate people living with dementia. In the entrance to the service there was a notice advising people and visitors that information could be provided in a different way, such as large font or easy read for example, on request.

The provider made it easy for people living at the service 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.

Regular resident meetings took place, and we saw the minutes of these which showed people were asked for their feedback about the service and any suggestions for improvement. However, the service had not been holding regular meetings for relatives for some time. The registered manager told us that when they had done, attendance had been very poor, and so they had stopped. People’s relatives we spoke with confirmed they had not been invited to any relative’s meetings, with most saying they wouldn’t attend even if they were an option. However, not all people’s relatives said they felt communication with the service was good. Although some people were pleased with the communication from the management team, some people told us they were not kept informed of how their relative was. We fed this back to the management team who told us they would review this.

There was a complaints policy in place. Complaints had been logged, investigated and responded to in line with the policy. People’s relatives told us they hadn’t needed to raise any complaints but were aware of how to do so. One person’s relative said, “Oh yes, they told me to come to the office if I have any concerns. I have never had to make a complaint about anything.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People's care records showed they had access to care, and that referrals were made for treatment or advice when needed.

People with protected characteristics were supported to have equitable access to services. For example, people with a disability which impacted their ability to leave the home were supported to access health services to meet their individual needs.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

No concerns were raised about this quality statement. Staff received training in equity, diversity and human rights to help them understand equality and address discrimination.

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.

At the time of the inspection nobody was receiving end of life care. Most staff told us they had completed end of life training, although some were unsure. However, the training matrix provided by the registered manager did show all staff had completed their training. One staff member said, “A good death for someone means they are pain free, comfortable and it’s dignified. I don’t just say ‘oh they’re end of life. I always go over the top with music, smells and bedding. Sometimes people don’t have anyone, and it can mean a lot that we are there.”