Oak Tree Lodge

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 71 (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. Staff understood people’s individual needs and made sure assessments were up to date and recorded. One healthcare professional said, “Senior staff complete a thorough assessment of people and involve healthcare professionals to ensure they can meet their needs before accepting them.” The registered manager told us, “We have a resident of the day, which means on that day we review all the person’s risk assessments and care plans with them. All heads of department speak with the person to see if there’s anything more we could be doing; this includes the maintenance, kitchen and housekeeping staff.”

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’s nutritional needs were assessed and met. Staff ensured people had enough to eat and drink. People told us their dietary, cultural and religious preferences in relation to food were catered for. Staff used nationally recognised tools appropriately to assess and monitor people’s needs. For example, theMalnutrition Universal Screening Tool(MUST) was used to identify people from risk of malnutrition. One person said, “The food is brilliant, I’m eating really well, and I’ve put on a bit of weight!” Another person told us there was not much variety. We asked if they had spoken to staff about this they said, “No, I did tell the staff I like sardines at teatime and the next evening I got them. So perhaps I should tell them!”

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. Healthcare professionals told us staff completed thorough assessments before people moved in the home. One healthcare professionals said, “Staff complete a thorough assessment of people’s needs and endeavour to make sure that we have all the information needed to provide ongoing care.”

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. People and their relatives told us they were seen by healthcare professionals when they needed them. Staff worked with the local care home team supporting people with weekly clinical support from healthcare professionals. One professional said, “We have a weekly catch up where we discuss any concerns, staff are knowledgeable and helpful and instructions given followed.”

The service 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. There was evidence of regular reviews and action being taken immediately following any changes to people’s health needs.

The service told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff sought people's consent and followed the Mental Capacity Act for people who did not have capacity. The registered manager told us those who were closest to the person had been consulted to contribute to decisions made in the person’s best interest, however, records did not always demonstrate this. This meant we could not be sure best interest decisions were made by more than 1 person. We brought this to the attention of the registered manager who responded immediately, taking action to improve their systems and booking additional training to ensure improvements going forwards.