Oak House

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 that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

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

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 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 were enabled to make choices for themselves and staff ensured they had the information they needed. Staff had an excellent knowledge of the people who lived at the home including their communication styles and needs. This enabled staff to provide person centred care which met people’s changing needs and preferences.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People lived in a home where care was provided in a flexible way that supported choice and continuity of care. Many of the staff had worked at Oak House for some time and they consistently demonstrated how they understood people’s needs. For example, 1 staff member told us, “We keep an eye out for things like [changes to health] if we see anything we report it. We see people every day and if they're not OK we know.” Staff responded to people’s changing needs and liaised with other professionals to make sure people received consistent care. One health professional told us, “I found people are well cared for and the staff know their individual needs well. When they attend for appointments, they allow people to independently consult where they are able but support them as needed.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information was provided to people in ways which met their individual communication needs. For example, some people had pictorial information about activities. Staff told us about one person’s interest in gardening; the person took great delight in sharing photos of their work with us.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. People and those close to them were supported to understand and raise concerns or make complaints when this was needed. Staff knew people well and said they would recognise if someone was not happy with any aspect of their care.

Relatives told us they would be happy to raise any issues with the registered manager. One relative told us, “If I had any concerns, I know all the staff at Oak House would help me with my concerns, they are the best staff anybody could wish for to look after their relative.”

The provider made sure people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The registered manager and staff understood the needs of people with a learning disability and autistic people and worked hard to ensure typical barriers faced by people were removed or mitigated against. For example, staff were working with health professionals to try to find a way for people to access well - person health checks. A health professional told us, “The staff have contacted me in the last month about 1 person to see if we can sit down together and see if we can find a way for them to access [well-person checks] in a learning disability friendly manner. This is the only home that has proactively approached me directly about this, so I think this is a real positive.” Records confirmed the registered manager, and staff had discussed these areas with people and relatives. Staff were aware of concerns and were in the process of working with health professionals to mitigate those.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Staff supported people to be empowered to make choices about their life. The registered manager and staff spoke of how recent changes made to a person’s medicines had had a negative effect on their quality of life. The team worked with health professionals to advocate on behalf of the person which ensured medicines were reviewed as a priority. A staff member told us, “It’s great. [Person] is now back to their usual self.”

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 service was not supporting anyone at the end of their lives at the time of our assessment. The registered manager had ensured people, and their relatives, had shared their plans. The information available was detailed, person centred and truly reflected people’s choices to be supported in their home where possible. Information was held by the service detailing any specific wishes people may have as to the actions staff should take should resuscitation be required.