The Oaks

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. We saw people and relatives, where appropriate, were involved in care planning and when any changes to people’s care planning was made. One relative said, “I see the care plan at the [person’s name] review, and they copy me in. Also have interaction with the social worker.” Another relative told us, “They (staff) take our advice.” Care plans were reviewed regularly or when people’s needs changed. Staff knew people well and were able to describe their current care needs and how best to support them. Staff told us they had enough information about people and were kept up to date with any changes in people’s needs. For example, during handovers.

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 their nutritional needs assessed by speech and language therapists and received meals in line with recommendations made by these professionals. For people assessed as requiring a modified diet staff followed the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI), as guided to from health care professionals to ensure people can safely and effectively eat and drink. IDDSI is the classification system used to describe food and drink textures. For example, for one person their food preparation must be soft, and bite sized, for another person the recommendation was easy chew food, cut into bite sized pieces and for another person soft and bite sized, and meat must be minced and moist. People spoken with told us they like the food. However, we received mixed feedback from relatives about the food. One relative said, “[Person’s name] enjoys food and has strong likes and dislikes. The food seems fine.” Whereas some other relatives felt the portion sizes were too large and one relative said, “The meal choices could be more healthy.” People did not raise any concerns about the meals provided during our onsite visit.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. For example, staff worked alongside a number of external agencies including health and social care professionals to support people to achieve positive outcomes. People’s care plans included their personal goals and aspirations. When people’s needs had changed the appropriate referrals had been made to the relevant agencies, where advice was sought and implemented into people’s care and support plans to ensure their needs were met.

People were supported by staff to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. For example, staff supported people to access a range of healthcare professionals such as dentists, opticians and hospital appointments and, supported people when health professionals visited them at the home. One relative told us their family member was being weighed weekly and they should receive a report of this, but they were only sent for about 3 weeks. We shared this with the registered manager who assured us they would action this to ensure weekly reports were sent to the family member. Another relative expressed their concern in relation to their loved one making an unwise decision which could have a detrimental impact on the health and said, “[Person’s name] either hasn’t got the ability or doesn’t know how to stop.” A further relative shared how their loved one had lost a tooth and said, “The deputy pushed to get it sorted and I was kept informed.”

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. Staff monitored people’s wellbeing during their shifts and told us if they had concerns, they would report to team leaders. Staff explained to us how people met with a member of staff who was a named key worker to discuss their needs and how they were feeling. These meetings helped staff to identify any decline in a person’s wellbeing. For those people who were unable to tell staff verbally if they were unwell or how they were feeling staff said they learn how the people communicate and can recognise their body language or change in behaviour to express if they were unwell or unhappy. One relative said, “I have no worries. [Person’s name] is monitored throughout the day.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. We observed staff asking people for consent. For example, we saw staff knocking on people’s bedroom doors before entering and asking if they were ready for their medicines. Staff demonstrated they understood the mental capacity act and ensured people were provided with information in a format they could understand to make an informed decision. Records showed people, relatives, staff and relevant professionals were involved to determine capacity and ensure decisions were made in their best interest where people lacked capacity for a specific decision.