Oasis Healthcare Solutions Ltd

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.This is the first inspection for this provider. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s care and support needs were assessed before they started using the service, helping to ensure appropriate care could be provided from the outset. One relative reflected positively on their experience, saying “Oasis have delivered on everything they promised at our initial meeting, and I am very happy with the care they provide.’’

Staff received key information promptly through the provider’s messaging system, enabling them to deliver consistent care. Care plans were regularly reviewed and updated when people’s needs changed. Records were detailed, accurate and person- centred, reflecting people’s individual needs, preferences and goals.

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.

People and their relatives were actively involved in planning and reviewing their care, with their views and preferences reflected in care plans and risk assessments. One relative told us, “Staff are vigilant when managing [our loved one] seizures and consistently follow all moving and handling procedures and care plans correctly,’’ This demonstrated relatives’ confidence in the staff’s ability to deliver safe and consistent care.

Staff explained that they followed recognised best practice guidance when supporting people, including meeting their nutritional needs and managing long-term health conditions. The provider’s policies and procedures were informed by current evidence-best practice to support the delivery of safe and effective care.

The provider worked well across teams and providers to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their inspection of needs when people moved between different providers.

Staff described a positive team culture and told us they worked well to achieve the best outcomes for people. Staff worked in partnership with other professionals to ensure consistent care; external professionals spoke positively about the team’s effective communication. Each person had a health information document available, enabling key information to be shared promptly with hospital staff if emergency or planned treatment was required.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. The provider supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported to access healthcare providers when required, including referrals to relevant health and social care professionals. Assessments of people’s care and support needs were in place to guide staff in delivering personalised care.

The registered manager explained that people were encouraged to lead active and fulfilling lives through a range of community-based activities tailored to their interests and preferences. This included attending dance classes, discos, hydrotherapy, theme parks, walks in the forest, bike riding with wheelchair-accessible equipment, visits to different parts of the local community, boat trips, face painting and bus trips. One relative highlighted the positive impact of the support provided, telling us “They keep our loved one entertained and they go out to discos as [our loved one] loves music."

Staff worked alongside an occupational therapist who provided guidance and resources to help maintain therapeutic activities. People were supported to make everyday choices using pictorial prompts, such as selecting meals, clothing and activities, while staff also recognised and responded to non-verbal communication and body language to understand people’s preferences and promote choice and independence.

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.

The provider worked in partnership with healthcare professionals, and staff monitored people’s health conditions to support achieving positive outcomes. Staff told us they documented their observations while monitoring people’s health conditions and promptly reported any concerns to the registered manager.

Relatives told us they were confident staff monitored people’s health conditions effectively and responded appropriately whenever any changes were identified. Relatives were also kept informed of changes. One relative said, “The staff are very good. They inform you about everything and all the decisions they make.’’

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

People told us they were treated with respect and supported to live their lives. Where appropriate, relatives were involved in decision-making. Consent was sought in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), and best interest decisions were made in the least restrictive way. However, not all required MCA assessment had been completed where people lacked capacity for specific decisions.

The registered manager demonstrated a limited understanding of the MCA requirements and best interest decision-making processes. This was discussed during the inspection, and guidance was provided. Immediate action was taken to complete the remaining MCA assessments and apply for Deprivation of Liberty authorisations in the community where required.