Charnwood Oaks Nursing Home

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 remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 54 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The service could demonstrate person-centred practice in some areas, including supporting people’s goals and wishes. However, person-centred care was not consistent. Relatives described a lack of stimulation and concerns that distressed people were left unattended. A relative said, “[Family member] just stays in bed. [Family member] isn’t stimulated at all.” Another relative told us, “[Loved one] is definitely not stimulated; they are left just sitting in the lounge.”

One person we reviewed had specific conditions in place which placed a duty onto the provider to provide meaningful activities. We observed the person to be in bed with the television on, however, due to the person’s medical conditions, they were unable to watch the tv. When we reviewed their activity records, the primary activity was recorded as ‘watching TV’, sometimes for up to 8 hours a day. This did not demonstrate the person was being supported in a way which met their needs and preferences. Another relative told us of similar concerns and said, “[Family member] is in bed 24 hours a day. [Staff] put the TV on for them, but I switch it off because they can’t see or hear it.”

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.

Relatives described some positive healthcare outcomes, including limited hospital admissions, and external professionals visiting regularly. However, staffing issues and delays in responding to people’s needs affected the reliability of care provision. Relatives raised concerns about night care, including personal care being missed or delayed and needs not being met overnight. One relative said, “I wouldn’t recommend the home. I have raised too many issues with them. The night staff are my biggest concern.” These concerns meant care provision was not consistently reliable across the service. A staff member stated, “I would like Managers to do more unannounced visits/audits between 6pm - 8am. My team in the day is good but night staff don’t do the care tasks.”

One relative told us they felt themselves, and another of their relatives, had been well-looked after when they came into the service to visit their mutual family member, and staff had taken the time to support them too. They said, “I can’t fault them. [Staff] are caring and do a good job. The staff have looked after [family member] well but they have also spent time looking after my [other relative] and myself [when we visit].

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Notice boards were installed on units as a way to share information with the people who lived at the service. However, someinformationwas invery small print,one board was obscured by a plant and another boardcontainedoutdatedinformation.

Relatives generally described communication as good, and some felt they received the information they needed.

One relative explained, “They do keep me up to date. If they need consent about something they call me.” Another relative said, “They call me if they need to know information and if they need to keep me informed about things. They told me the doctor was visiting recently so I could meet him.”

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

The provider did not always make it easy for people and relatives to share feedback and feel listened to. Multiple relatives said they did not know who the manager was and that they did not have opportunities to provide feedback through surveys or feedback forms. One relative explained, “I am not sure who the manager is.” Another relative, when asked if they had ever been asked to give feedback stated, “I have had one questionnaire in two years and that was a long time ago.”

Staff also described limited ways to provide feedback and felt leaders were not open to suggestions, and staff described not being briefed promptly after external inspections or outbreaks. One relative said, “The manager can be difficult to deal with they can be very abrupt. It is hard to speak to them and they are never around at the weekend when we visit.”

This meant the provider did not have strong systems to listen, involve people and staff, and demonstrate positive actions and outcomes.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People had access to external professionals who visited regularly. A relative stated, “Doctor has visited to see to [Family member]. [Family member] also has a chiropodist and hairdresser.” Another relative explained, “I feel [the service] are proactive getting other professionals in for residents when they have concerns.”

The service demonstrated escalation to specialist support such as SALT following choking incidents. These features supported access to healthcare advice and intervention when required.

Staff and leaders did not listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not tailored in response to this.

People’s experiences were not equitable across the service. There was a clear disparity between day and night care. One relative explained, “The day staff are very good. They need to look at better staffing at night.”

Staff and relatives raised repeated concerns about night staff task completion, delayed responses, unmet needs overnight and inconsistent care. Staffing pressures also reduced one‑to‑one support and opportunities for meaningful activity for some people. These issues meant outcomes and experiences were not consistently equal across the home.

Some relatives raised concerned about training levels for specific areas of care, with a relative explaining, “[Staff] are not well trained. They do not know how to deal with dementia.” This placed people with dementia at risk of being treated differently to others within the service.

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.

End of life wishes had been discussed and recorded, which supported planning and communication. The service also demonstrated examples of ongoing health escalation and partnership working, which supported planning for changes in health needs. The service provided memorial gestures, which included sending forget-me-not flower seeds to relatives when a person died.