Oxford House Nursing 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 meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People told us they felt involved in their day to day care and this was evidenced in people’s care plans. One person told us, “If I say I want to stay in bed they let me and if I want to get up they get me up.”

There was evidence to show the provider sought regular feedback from people using the service. One quality assurance survey regarding people's experience of care and support been completed with people's relatives. There was evidence to show actions were taken following completion of surveys.

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. People had correctly modified texture diets where there were risks of choking. This included soft, pureed or fork mashed meals. Some people also had fluid thickener added to their drinks. Appropriate stocks of this was available and there was up to date signage of people’s dietary requirements, likes and dislikes in the kitchen. Most people reported they enjoyed the food provided at the service and felt their likes and dislike were taken into account. However, some people told us they felt the food could be improved. This was discussed with the registered manager who said this would be reviewed. People reported to being able to choose their meals in the morning of each day. However, they did report if they were asleep, the meal would be chosen for them. People did say they did not mind as the staff knew their likes and dislikes. Fluid charts were in place for people who were unable to drink unsupported. This meant that fluid intake was monitored daily and staff could ensure that people’s fluid intake was sufficient for their needs.

During the inspection, we observed a person indicating they did not like what was on their plate at lunchtime, and this was quickly addressed by staff and the cook. It was clear that the chef knew the person well and the resident proceeded to eat the rest of the meal. It was clear from talking with and observing people eating their lunch staff were kind and helpful.

The registered manager worked and sought support from different stakeholders to ensure the care was in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. The registered manager was motivated to plan and deliver people’s care and treatment, including what was important and mattered to them.

Care records reflected people's care and support needs. The service made timely and appropriate referrals for specialist support from other professionals such as the GP and the speech and language team (SALT). Care plans had been written including guidance from professionals to ensure people’s needs were met.

The registered manager worked in collaboration and effectively across teams and services to support people as they moved between services so that people had positive outcomes. The registered manager and staff had access to and used the information they needed to appropriately assess, plan and deliver people’s care, treatment and support. The registered manager had clear lines of communication and records ensuring care was co-ordinated effectively.Processes were in place to share information across the service. Regular staff meetings were held. Assessments were reviewed and the staff and leaders facilitated discussion to support seamless services between professionals. Staff worked with other professionals to make sure people’s needs were met. This included GPs, speech and language therapists and specialist nurses.

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 worked with professionals from health and social care to support people's health and wellbeing needs. The registered manager was in regular contact with local authorities who supported with funding for people using the service. The registered manager provided evidence of regular correspondence to discuss the changing needs of people and how they will support the person. The registered manager and staff also had regular involvement with other professionals to ensure that people had the correct level of support.

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 both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People's needs, choices and preferences were assessed with evidence-based tools when they moved into the home. Staff and the management team regularly reviewed people’s care plans to ensure they were accurate, up to date and reflected the current needs and preferences of people. Every day there was a ‘resident of the day’ and this included reviewing all information regarding the person as well as talking to them about any changes they would like to their care.

Staff said they used observations by care staff and nurses, as well as GP reviews, and different checks to monitor people’s health and wellbeing so they could respond to any changes and ensure good outcomes for people. Staff were aware of different ways people communicated including responding to people’s non-verbal cues and body language.

The registered manager and staff routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously sustain it and improve it where possible. They ensured that outcomes for people were positive and consistent. The registered manager and the staff team worked together to use effective approaches to monitor people’s care and treatment and their outcomes.

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

The registered manager worked with people, staff, and others to ensure people’s rights around consent were respected when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People’s care plans documented their capacity and the level of support they required to make decisions. The registered manager ensured that when people needed support to make decisions, this was done in their best interests with the right parties and professionals involved. Staff helped people make choices and decisions, using their preferred method of communication and this was done in a respectful manner.

There was evidence of Mental Capacity Act (MCA) assessments being completed for individual tasks such as wound care and living at the service. Where best interests meetings were required, these had been recorded and included within people’s care plans. For example, best interests meetings had taken place in relation to covert medicines and the use of bed rails. Where people lacked capacity, the registered manager had applied for deprivation of liberties (DoLS) appropriately.