Oxford Beaumont

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 79 (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.

People and, where appropriate, their relatives were involved in assessing and reviewing their individual needs. Records showed people were supported to make choices about their care from the outset, including selecting their room where possible and planning daily routines. One relative told us, “I am invited to care plan reviews… and have been supported to ensure my [relative’s] preferences are upheld.” The provider ensured each person’s care plan was reviewed monthly and their views and those of their relatives sought, through their ‘Resident of the Day process.’

Staff told us, “If we notice any changes, we report it straight away to the nurse or manager” and “We don’t wait, if something feels off, we escalate it.” This approach enabled staff to identify early signs of deterioration promptly and take timely action, reducing the risk of conditions worsening. As a result, people received appropriate treatment at an early stage, which supported better health outcomes and recovery.
 

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.

Staff used nationally recognised clinical tools to assess and monitor people's needs and risks. These were reviewed monthly to ensure they reflected people’s current needs and risks. Where people had specific clinical needs or risks for example, in relation to falls, pressure care, catheter care or wound care their records reflected and referenced good practice guidance.

People's nutrition and hydration needs were documented and any associated risks such as from weight loss and choking had been identified and addressed. There was guidance in place which was shared across the staff team to ensure people who required a modified diet were given meals of the correct consistency. People at risk of weight loss received fortified meals to boost their calorie intake. People’s individual preferences were highly respected and catered for. Staff actively supported people to create and customise their own flavours of shakes, puddings, and snacks. For example, we observed one person choosing specific ingredients to blend into a fortified shake that they enjoyed. This person-centred approach ensured people received food and drink that met their personal tastes.

Overall feedback about the meals provided was positive. People said, “The food is really good, and there's plenty of it” and “The food is good and [person] always has a choice.”
 

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.

People's electronic care plans were clear, accessible to staff and updated following any guidance received from external professionals. A visiting health care professional confirmed that staff knew people well and provided them with useful information, to enable them to review people.

People and relatives felt staff worked well together both as a team and with them. A relative commented, “The communications are very good, we [relatives] are regularly invited to the home for meetings and discussions.” A staff member confirmed staff worked well together, Information was shared between staff at each shift handover to ensure continuity of care, with daily head of department meetings used to review key updates, coordinate actions, and reinforce communication across teams. One staff member said, “We have handovers and meetings where we share concerns and ideas,” and another said, “We work well together as a team.”
 

The provider consistently 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’s care plans enabled staff to understand their healthcare needs, including their preferences regarding care. The care plans also promoted healthier options, for example in relation to dietary choices.

Staff arranged for people to see a range of healthcare professionals, and there was a weekly GP visit to the home. We observed hospital-at-home professionals visiting a person. Records showed the provider had actively engaged in research projects, including an oral health initiative, which improved outcomes and increased people’s confidence in managing their oral health.
Staff had completed training in sepsis awareness, to ensure they were aware of the signs and symptoms and the actions to take.

People were supported to maintain and improve their health and wellbeing. Staff encouraged healthy lifestyles through activities such as Zumba, dancing and group sporting events.

The service supported people to make informed choices about their diet and wellbeing. Creative initiatives, such as fortified shakes, smoothies and themed activities like “mocktails,” promoted nutrition and engagement. People were empowered to make healthy choices. We observed a wide range of readily available refreshments throughout the communal areas. Clear, easy-to-read nutritional information accompanied these items, helping people understand the health benefits of their choices.

The service promoted independence by providing refreshment stations, enabling residents to safely prepare their own drinks, with measures in place such as risk assessments, appropriate equipment, and staff oversight to maintain safety.
 

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. The provider ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent.

People provided positive feedback regarding the outcomes from people’s care. A relative said, “I think [the person] improved a lot since [ the person] has been here.” People’s care plans detailed their needs and the expected outcomes from their care. The staff used electronic care planning systems to record clinical observations, track progress against desired outcomes such as healing rates of wounds and weight gain/loss. Findings from internal audits were used to implement preventative measures and share learning with staff.
 

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The provider sought people’s written consent for their care. People’s care plans noted their capacity to make decisions and where they had variable capacity the types of decisions they could make for themselves and any support, they required from staff in order to make decisions.

Staff had completed Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) training and understood the principles of the MCA and its application in their work. People’s MCA assessments were person-centred and decision specific. People’s MCA assessments noted the measures staff had taken, to try and enable them to make decisions. Where people lacked the capacity to make decisions about their care, any decisions were made in their best interests and involved both their legal representatives and any relevant parties.

Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of consent and choice in everyday activities. They told us, “I talk gently… and ask permission before helping,” and “If the answer is no, I leave and try again later. It is their choice.” Staff told us they always sought permission before providing care. Comments included, “I explain care clearly and gain consent before supporting.” A family member told us their relative was being given the choice to leave the home on outings “[staff] are even getting [relative] out to community activities, [relative] went to a garden centre, we were invited to join them which we did. [relative] is never forced.”