Oaklodge 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

This means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has changed

to requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 54 (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 did not always ensure 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. People told us that they were happy with their care, some people had been involved in the formulation of their care plans and others had been given the opportunity to read them and request changes are made. There was a need to embed this consistently across the service as not all people had this experience, as well as ensuring people were actively involved in their reviews if they wished to be. People were supported in line with their preferences, however, there was room for improvement to ensure all their preferences were reflected in their care plans. People had personalised rooms and those we spoke with told us they were very happy with their rooms. One person told us that they had even taken careful consideration around which room, in which area of the home, would be best based on their preference of a peaceful environment.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of

people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of

choice and continuity.

Staff did not always have the clear information about people’s current needs as care plans

included old and new information. This meant that new staff members may not have been able

to provide consistent support in line with their colleagues who had better knowledge of the

person. There were inconsistencies in how care was coordinated and integrated across the

service, particularly where people require staff to anticipate their needs.

Staff referred people to relevant health professionals and followed their advice.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Staff were not always provided with information about people’s current needs as most care plans were formulated as a chronology of events, and details about how people liked their care provided, were not always there. People with additional communication needs did not have their care plans or other relevant information adapted into a way that suited their needs. This meant they did not have the opportunity to be involved in their care planning as they did not have access to their risk assessments or care plans. However, where people could communicate clearly, they told us that they had been able to view their care plans or had them read out to them where needed. Relatives told us that they have been able to see their relative’s care plans and have input. We found the provider was open with providing information, including information for people and their relatives to raise concerns or access other support, but there is room for improvement to ensure this is a consistent experience for everyone.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise

complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in

decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The provider held regular resident and relative meetings. Relatives told us that they saw prompt

action when they shared concerns or feedback, however people did not always experience this.

People told us that they are not always involved in decisions about their care, such as, ones

made by the GP. Someone told us that staff will update them afterwards, but there was a need

to adapt this practice for everyone and embed a practice where people are more involved in

decisions

.

The provider had a complaints policy in place which included a structure of how complaints

would be responded to, this involved ensuring all people pertinent to the complaint were

involved and heard.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The provider made referrals to external services and professionals when a change in need was identified. People were supported to access primary care services, such as the GPs and Dentists, but this wasn’t always clearly recorded. For example, some people had refused to attend their regular dental check-ups. Staff did not always document refusals, or follow up action, for example, offering alternative dates, or revisiting the decision later, so we were not assured this was happening. This left people at risk of deteriorating health as they were not being supported to see the relevant health professionals.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely

to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always

tailored in response to this.

People using the service who could communicate verbally or express their needs easily in other

ways, had more input into activities that took place at the service. We observed that people who

could not communicate and required staff to anticipate their needs were not supported to do

activities they may want to, and at times, were left out of activities.

Similarly, people who had additional communication needs had less input into their desired

goals or outcomes, and we found little evidence that people were being supported to achieve

these.

The provider did facilitate opportunities for people to share information about themselves, but

this was not equitable across all people using the service.

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. The provider liaised with health professionals and followed people’s preferences recorded on the Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms about life changes and the end of their life. There was room for improvement to ensure everyone’s wishes were effectively sought to feed into these plans. The provider currently relied heavily on input from relatives where people required support to communicate.