Oxford House Nursing 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 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 were at the centre of their care. Care plans were written from people’s perspectives and contained information for staff about how people wanted support to be carried. Care plans included specific information which captured people's needs, interests, personality traits and life histories. Staff told us how they supported people to make choices. This included choice of meals, how they liked to spend their time and when they wished to receive personal care.

The provider understood the care needs of people. Referrals to external services included detail about people’s presenting risks, and outcomes and recommendations from professionals were recorded. Professionals supporting people gave positive feedback about how the care home worked with external agencies to ensure people’s needs were met.

The service also completed a ‘resident of the day’ where all documents for the person selected were reviewed to support with ensuring they were receiving the right care and support.

The provider had systems in place to monitor and review people’s care needs and to escalate concerns to external services. The service worked closely with the local authority and other agencies to continuously improve the quality of care they delivered.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. The registered manager understood their responsibilities in relation to the accessible information standard which applies to people who use a service and have information or communication needs. Where required, the provider would use technology to help people understand information given such as through translation services online or by telephone. The registered manager also noted some of the staff could speak different languages and supported people to be informed about their daily life.

Staff agreed they had access to all the information they needed to provide safe and effective care and support. People’s care plans included information on how they liked to be communicated with both verbally and non-verbally.

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 registered manager stated they had an open-door policy where people, relatives, professionals and staff could openly speak with them about any concerns they may have. This was confirmed by staff and people. People told us they knew who the registered manager was and felt comfortable raising concerns with them.

The provider had recently sought feedback about the service from people, relatives and staff and this was overall positive.

The registered manager advised any concerns brought to their attention were dealt with in a timely manner and people were involved in ensuring the service continued to improve.

The provider made sure people could access the care and support they required when they needed it. The service had regular involvement with multiple healthcare professionals including, GPs and physiotherapists to support people to receive effective care which met their health and wellbeing needs. Evidence of GP and other health appointments were recorded in people’s records within individual care plans, such as for people living with diabetes and other long-term conditions. We found evidence of regular conversations between the provider and other professionals to ensure the best outcomes for people. Professionals reported staff communicated effectively with them to help meet people’s 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 in response to this.

Staff told us they would provide care and support for people regardless of their background. Records showed people’s individuality and preferences were celebrated. Policies and procedures underpinned working practices within the service. People’s goals and intended outcomes were detailed and were known to staff.

People told us they had not experienced any form of discrimination. The staff told us they have not witnessed any discrimination or inequality at the service. They worked together and communicated with people and families which ensured people were treated fairly to receive individualised care and support.

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.

People’s care plans included information regarding their end of life care wishes which had been discussed with them and relevant others including relatives and professionals. People's end of life wishes were detailed in their care plans if they had wished to discuss this.