St Oswalds

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 the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for St Oswalds Care Home this service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

We have not awarded this service a score for Responsive.

Find out about when we will not publish a key question score and what we look at when we assess Responsive.

The provider made sure 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. Staff communicated well with people and treated them with kindness. There was positive staff interaction with people which was encouraging and respectful. People and relatives were actively involved in reviews and decisions. A relative said, “They [management] seek our input about [Name] care. We are involved in how they support [Name].”

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. People did not always have appropriate information about their health conditions recorded to ensure continuity of care was applied. For example, records for some people’s health conditions lacked detail to support staff in the event their condition deteriorated or needed attention.

However, relatives told us staff helped support people with health appointments. We observed a GP round and staff supporting people to communicate their ailments to the GP. People received mostly consistent care from staff who had got to know people well.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats which were tailored to individual needs. Where people could no longer recognise the written word, we observed staff using gestures and picture menus to help with communication. Staff understood data protection requirements, and people and their relatives were provided with clear and transparent information about what to expect from the service in a way they could understand.

Although the provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always proactively listen to people or act on their preferences about their care. For example, we observed a delay in a person receiving their meal in line with their medication schedule. The person told us this was an ongoing issue they had previously raised. We discussed this with management, who assured us they would review the situation and identify better ways to support the individual.

People and their relatives told us management were approachable and listened to any ideas or concerns raised. Residents meetings gave people opportunities to influence menus and activities, and records showed the provider acted on their suggestions. Relatives said they were confident any issues would be addressed.

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it in a timely way, and reasonable adjustments were made to reduce barriers, including support with mobility, communication, and access to healthcare. People spoken with told us they were promptly referred to healthcare services and external support when needed, without discrimination.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Staff had a good understanding of people and how they may experience inequalities and worked to minimise that. Policies were available to support staff understand equality and diversity, and staff had access to equality and diversity training.

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 were supported to plan for important life changes, including end of life and those who did not feel comfortable discussing this topic, their wishes were respected.