Archived: Oak Tree Mews

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.

This is the first assessment for this care home under its newly registered provider. This key question has been rated Requires Improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We mostlyobservedstaff treating people in a person-centred way, however the informationdetailed in care recordswas not always comprehensiveand did not always reflect what staff knew about people’s interests and preferences.For example,severalpeople had life history carerecordswhichhad notbeen completed. Another person had no information recorded about things or peoplewhichwere important to them. This was also the case for their daily routine and details about how they liked their care specifically tobe given.

We saw forsomepeople there werevery limiteddetails recorded, or the information was not particularly meaningful about the individual. For example, it was not always possible to understand what activities a person enjoyed or may wish to continue participating in. Another person at times experienced low mood but there were no details recorded on how they couldbe supportedat these times.This meantnew staffwould not have access to this information to learn about a person if they became unable to share this verbally.

People experienced a continuity in their care from staff they were comfortable with and who knew them well.

The provider worked with other services, to ensure people received continuity of care. Details of this support was recorded in people’s care records. We were told staff supported people and their relatives with the transition of moving into the care home and had supported people at short notice when it had become unsafe for them to live alone at home. A family member said: “The care home made the transition easy. She [person living at the care home] settled mainly because of the staff”.

Most people living in the care home were from the local and surrounding areas and were supported to maintain links which were important to them. Relatives told us they had chosen the care home based on local recommendations. We saw during the inspection that relatives and friends regularly visited people in the care home, and this was encouraged and supported by staff.

The provider did not always supplyappropriate,accurateand up-to-date information in formats thatwere tailoredto individual needs.

There was not always the opportunity to have information provided in a different formatwhichmay be more accessible for people. The registered manager said they currently did not have any easy read versions of documentsor larger formats available.For example,whenpeople movedinto thecare hometheywere providedwith a service user guide,and this was available in bedrooms. The guidecontaineda large volume of text. Thiswas not providedor available in an easier format for people who needed this andcontainedoutdated information. The registered manager said they were looking to update this in future.

However, people’s communication needs hadbeen assessedand recorded so staff were aware how to support them and ensure any aidsrequiredwere in good working condition and with the person.

Thecare homewas currentlyoperating2 systemsof information provision, an electronicsystemand a paper-basedsystem. This was not proving to be effective in terms of having to ensure informationwas updatedin2 placesand remainedaccurate. The provider told us they wanted to get feedback to ensure whichever system they decided on worked for everyone using it.

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

The leadership team were visible within thecare homefor people and relatives to approach and talk to if needed. However, there had not been any encouragement to fully gather feedback about people’s experiences and views of living in thecare homeand receiving care. We saw in February 2025 a survey recorded1relative response and2people’s responses, this was under thepreviousregistered manager. This had notbeen followedup to encourage or to support more people to share their feedback. The current registered manager told us they had not undertaken any feedback surveys yet but were looking to set up relative meetings going forward to enable better communication.Relatives commented on the fact there were no family meetings taking place; however, theygenerally feltthey could talk to staff directly if they needed to.

One comment in the feedback had raised a concern aroundobservingpoor medicinespractice. There was no analysis from the feedback, and the registered manager was unaware of what actions hadbeen takenin response to thisbeforejoining thecare home. This had notbeen recordedeffectively to show the concern hadbeen takenseriously and managed appropriately.

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

People were supported to access services and support when they required this. The leadership team spoke about the barriers experienced trying to secure access to dentists. The care home had worked with a local dentist who had agreed to come out and visit people if needed. An optician visited the care home annually to provide routine checks, and some people retained previous professionals they saw before moving into the care home.

The care home linked in with a company which provided accessible transport to ensure people were not restricted from going out and visiting places of interest. This had resulted in people having their social circles increased and attended a Christmas party. People who had mobility needs were able to go on day trips as the transport accommodated their wheelchair.

The service had an emergency protocol for staff if they needed management support out of normal working hours. This was overseen by the registered manager and deputy manager, and staff could call for advice or to raise any concerns if needed.

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.

The management and staff team demonstrated awareness of potential discrimination people might face and were confident to advocate on their behalf where needed. We saw there was diversity among the staff team, and staff had received equality and diversity training. The provider had a policy on Equality, Diversity and Human Rights and were working in line with their policy.

The provider told us they had introduced a calendar of cultural events celebrating diverse backgrounds and religious festivals, for example Eid, Diwali, Christmas, Pride Month and various awareness days.

People were not always 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.

Information about people’s wishes and preferences around the care they would want to receive in the future had not been recorded. We saw gaps in the advance care planning sections of people’s care plans and these conversations had not yet been approached with people and their families.

ReSPECT (Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment) forms had been completed for some people which highlighted the medical care and treatment they wanted at this time; however, these did not have any further information about their cultural, religious or individual wishes. The registered manager told us they were looking to put this in place shortly and work with families as not everyone wanted to talk about it until nearer the time but understood it was important to approach and offer this conversation.

We found 5 staff members were not recorded as having completed end of life training and 1 staff member’s training was out of date. One staff member told us they felt confident supporting people at this stage of their lives and that previously when a resident had died the family members of other residents had attended the funeral due to close bonds within the care home’s community.