Oakdene

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, well being and communication needs with them. Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about people and their needs. For example, a staff member said, “We are encouraged to spend time with people, only by getting to know someone and their background can you fully understand how to support them.” Another staff member said, “We are included in reviews of care plans and discussions about people’s needs, our opinions are valued as we spend the most time with people.” People living at Oakdene had a key worker who oversaw their care and reviews with management. Care plans reflected people changing needs such as changes in used of mobility equipment.

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. A range of national risk assessments were in use to ensure any risks were identified using best practice guidance. For example, a nationally recognised wound assessment tool was utilised to identify people at risk of pressure damage, a nutritional risk assessment tool was used to highlight people at risk of malnutrition. The use of tools identifies areas of risk and provides guidance to staff to provide effective care. The provider had sought external professionals to support people where appropriate. For example, we saw referrals to mental health and crisis support services.

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. Care plans were person centred and detailed people’s clinical needs. For example, a person had detailed guidance from a Community Psychiatric Nurse embedded into their care plan. A professional we spoke with told us, “Staff always follows our advice and recommendations, everything is always written down so there no misunderstanding. I cannot fault the care they deliver.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and well being 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. We saw examples of exercises programmes created with people and professionals to improve mobility and reduce falls.

Additionally, a staff member explained to us, “We have a range of food options available to people to support their health conditions, but we also help them make informed decisions. Just because someone may be diabetic doesn’t mean they can’t have a treat and it’s their decision, as long as we support with all the information and ensure they have choices.” This ensured people received effective person-centred care that promoted their health and well being.

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. Frequent care plan reviews meant the staff team had effective oversight of people’s needs. A relative we spoke with said, “Care is so good here, [name] has gone from strength to strength and are really happy here.”

Where concerns were identified action was taken. Care plans were updated following incidents and visits from professionals to ensure people were supported effectively.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff completed training since our last assessment regarding the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the provider’s dementia specialist spent time with staff to strengthen their knowledge around the MCA. The MCA provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to make particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. Where people lacked capacity, mental capacity assessments had now been completed in line with the legal framework. Some people at the service were subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLs), this is where the person cannot make decisions about their care and treatment, so restrictive care arrangements are legally authorised in the person’s best interest. Staff had knowledge of DoLs and how this impacts people. We found conditions attached to authorisations were complied with and detailed in people’s care records. We observed staff ask consent before providing care, people’s right to say ‘No’ was respected and we observed staff reattempt using a different approach. This meant people’s human rights were respected.