Oakdene

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 82 (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. The provider had reviewed social opportunities and people told us these had improved. The registered manager had created a home environment that encouraged social inclusion but that also gave people opportunities to practice life skills in a safe environment. For example, the dining room was designed as an American restaurant and people could simulate the experience of eating out and ordering meals, however the room was also designed to allow people to prepare and cook their own meals if they chose. There was a self-contained laundry room for people who wished to learn and practice this domestic task. This showed person centred care and environment that supported people’s individuals’ goals and aspirations.

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. Staff discussed partnership working with other healthcare professionals to ensure people had the best possible outcomes. The registered manager had experienced barriers in accessing support and services due to pressure on the NHS and other Governmental services. Where this happened, we saw evidence of staff explaining this to people and helping them with other pathways in the interim. For example, where they had been delays in obtaining support from occupational therapists, a comprehensive risk assessment had been completed to support people use equipment already in the home to ensure their health condition did not deteriorate further. One staff member said, “Its can be very challenging, but due to range of skills and experience of staff we are able to offer support within the home while we chase up other services.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. People’s communication needs were documented in care records and interventions implemented as needed. For example, a person who could not verbalise their needs had information for staff in how they communicated their needs through body language and facial expressions. A staff member we spoke with gave us an example where staff learnt key phrases in a person’s native language to better support them with their communication needs. We also saw examples of services such as interpreters being engaged to support people where needed. At times, the provider funded this support to ensure people were supported to have clear information in their preferred communication method to aid them to make informed decisions.

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 their relatives were able to provide feedback on their care, through care plan reviews, regular telephone calls and satisfaction surveys. People and their relatives were supported to raise concerns, complaints and compliments. Complaints were responded to in line with providers own policy. The provider explained they used complaints as a learning opportunity and demonstrated a committed attitude to resolving people’s concerns to improve their experience. Where people required support to share feedback they were supported to engage advocacy services. Residents’ and relatives’ meetings were held regularly to support people to be actively involved in shaping the service.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Records we reviewed demonstrated timely referrals to health and social care professionals were made when needed. We observed staff supporting external professionals within the home such as mental health nurses and GP’s, ensuring people had a safe and private space to have meetings and offering advocacy support appropriately. The registered manager went above and beyond to help people access services needed for them to achieve their goals. For example, one person was being supported to access the services of the home office and other people were supported to contact housing authorities.

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 live their lives in their own way respecting people’s lifestyle choices and religious beliefs. A staff member we spoke with explained, how they supported people with their cultural needs to ensure they felt fulfilled. The provider ensured social opportunities were provided to all people, social interactions were analysed to determine people’s enjoyment and engagement. This supported the provider to decrease the possibility of social isolation.

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. At the time of the assessment no one was in receipt of end-of-life care, however care plans contained clear details of what people wanted to happen in the event of an emergency.

People were supported to express their goals and wishes. A staff member told us, “Most people have the aim of returning to supported or independent living, and everyone’s journey is different. Some people achieve this in 6 months others it can take years, however it’s about smaller goals and seeing positive progress, that is so important.” We saw evidence of people who had previously left the service returning to share their experience and progress.