Oaklodge Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

This means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them

with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the

rating has changed to good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 65 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected

their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and

respect.

During our assessment, we found that privacy and dignity was upheld by staff at the service.

Relatives told us that they found the staff to be kind and compassionate. We observed positive

interactions between staff and people throughout our time in the service. We heard and

observed staff members introducing themselves to a person moving into the home and getting

to know the person throughout the course of the day.

People told us that they liked the staff at the service and were happy about the care they

received. One relative told us, “[Staff] genuinely care and are dedicated to our relative and all

the residents.”

Some people were not able to tell us about their care, so we used Short Observational

Framework for Inspections (SOFI) to see if they received good care. We observed a mixture of

positive and neutral interactions. We did not see any negative interactions throughout this

process.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences, there was room for improvement to ensure this was equal across all people using the service. They took account of people’s culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. Staff took time to understand each person’s background, preferences and routines. Staff used this knowledge to deliver person centred care that promoted independence. Although this information was not always included in people’s care plans, and this had been identified as an area for improvement. Some people had religious needs, and these needs were met. For example, for people who could not leave the care home to access church services, a priest visited once a month to run a service in the conservatory, away from those who did not want to attend.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know

their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Largely, we did not find evidence that people are supported to do things for themselves with

appropriate risk assessments in place to ensure it is done

safely

. Some people living in the

home enjoy walking around the premises during the day, but where there was nothing in place

to ensure safe access and use of the stairs throughout the home. Following feedback from the

inspectors, the provider began work with their fire officer and maintenance to find the least

restrictive way to rectify this issue.

People are supported to understand their rights, but there was no evidence that this was being

adapted to suit people’s individual communication needs. People were not always offered

alternative options when consenting to aspects of their care.

We found some examples where people were empowered to do things for themselves and

develop their independence. For example, one person liked to do their deep cleaning in their

room, so the cleaning staff included them in this, they were supported to do some of the tasks

themselves.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment. During our time at the service, we observed call bells not being responded to in the time limit set by the service. The target time for responding to call bells (unless it is an emergency alarm) is within 3 minutes. We observed sometimes where it took slightly longer than this, for example, one occasion it was just over 4 minutes. The majority of the time, the communal areas were supervised by a member of staff, however we did observe on some occasions, it was not. This meant people in the communal areas were not always able to access support. People told us that there is always someone around to help if they need it.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled

staff to always deliver person-centred care.

We found that some staff had not received supervisions as per the schedule set by the provider,

however, this did not appear to impact those staff as they reported feeling very supported. The

feedback from the staff team, reflected similar feelings, and they felt very cared for.

Some staff told us they have had situations in their personal lives from time to time, which

affected their availability to work, and the provider was flexible with shifts to support them as

much as possible.

Staff felt that they received enough, relevant training to do their job to a high standard, and they

felt listened to by the provider. One person told us “I have supervision roughly every 3-4 months.

It gives me a chance to talk about my work, ask questions, and get support. I do feel well

supported by my team and manager.”