Oaklands Littlehampton Limited

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 Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 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.

People’s care plans reflected their individual needs, routines and preferences. Staff understood how people wished to be supported and used this information to provide care in a way that was personal to them. Records showed people and, where appropriate, relatives were involved in care planning and reviews when people’s needs changed.

People told us they were involved in decisions about their care and daily life. Relatives also told us communication was good and that staff understood people’s needs. Feedback from relatives described staff as compassionate and respectful, with one relative explaining, “They really see [person] as an individual, not just someone in their care.” This helped ensure people received care that mattered to them.

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.

People had care plans in place which reflected their assessed needs, routines and support arrangements. These were reviewed when people’s needs changed, and information was shared between staff through handovers, care records and daily communication. This helped staff understand people’s current needs, preferences, risks and any changes in presentation.

The service worked with relatives, unpaid carers and external professionals to support continuity of care. The service also maintained relationships with some people after they had moved on, including inviting them to return for events and celebrations. This helped people maintain valued relationships and links with the home. Records showed people were supported to access healthcare services when required, and staff shared relevant information with professionals to support joined-up care. Feedback from relatives indicated communication from the service was good and staff understood people’s needs. One person told us, “I was here on respite several times. I decided to sell my property and move in here. I am very glad I did.” This reflected a positive transition and continuity of care as the person moved from respite to permanent care, which supported positive outcomes and reduced disruption to the person’s care and wellbeing.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information was shared with people and relatives to support them to understand the service, people’s care and how to raise concerns if needed. This included day-to-day communication as well as information shared through newsletters and other formats to keep people and relatives informed about life within the home. Care records included information about people’s communication needs, preferences and who should be involved in discussions about their care. Staff understood the importance of sharing information in a way people could understand and supporting people to make informed choices.

Information within the home was presented in ways that supported people’s understanding and orientation. We saw signage around the home and information about meals and activities was available to help people know what was happening during the day. Staff were available to explain information, answer questions and support people or relatives to access information when needed. Information was stored and shared appropriately to support confidentiality and safe care delivery.

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 relatives had opportunities to share feedback through day-to-day conversations, meetings, surveys and contact with the management team. People told us they knew who they would speak to if they had concerns and felt these would be taken seriously. One person told us, “I would go to management. I feel they will deal with it”. People living at the home also told us they felt comfortable approaching management if they needed support or wished to raise concerns. We observed positive and open interactions between leaders, staff, people and relatives within the home environment.

Feedback was used to make changes within the home. People described being able to make suggestions about their routines, activities and the environment, and staff listened to people’s views. One person told us, “We make suggestions and they gladly went for it.” Records and feedback showed relatives were also kept informed and involved when people’s needs changed. This supported people and those important to them to be involved in shaping their care and experience of the service.

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

People were supported to access care, treatment and support in a way that reflected their needs. The home environment supported accessibility, with communal areas, lifts, mobility equipment and adaptations available to help people move around the service. Staff understood people’s mobility, communication and sensory needs and provided support so people could access communal spaces, activities, appointments and healthcare input when required.

The service worked with healthcare professionals and relatives to support people’s access to care and treatment. Records showed referrals were made when people’s needs changed, and advice from external professionals was shared with staff. A healthcare professional told us, “I have had no difficulties contacting the home” and described staff as “friendly and welcoming”.

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.

People living at the home had a range of needs relating to mobility, communication, cognition, health conditions and sensory needs. Staff understood these differences and adapted their approach so people could be involved in daily life and receive care in a way that worked for them. Care records included information about people’s individual needs and preferences, including how staff should communicate with and support them.

The provider made adjustments to support people’s experience and outcomes. For example, feedback from a person identified difficulties accessing bathroom facilities following a hip replacement. Leaders responded by adapting the environment to improve accessibility and support the person’s independence and safety. The environment also included adaptations to support mobility and orientation, and staff provided support in ways that reflected people’s abilities and communication needs. People were supported to access activities, communal areas and healthcare services in a way that promoted inclusion and reduced barriers to care.

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.

People were supported to have discussions about future planning in a sensitive and person-centred way. Care records included information about people’s wishes, preferences and important decisions relating to their future care. Staff and leaders described involving people, relatives and healthcare professionals where appropriate to help ensure people’s wishes were understood and respected.

The provider worked with community nurses and other healthcare professionals to support people whose health needs changed or who required end-of-life care. Leaders described supporting people to remain at the home where this reflected their wishes and ensuring care was delivered in a compassionate and dignified way. Records included relevant information relating to future care planning, including Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms and Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) decisions where appropriate.

Where people did not wish to discuss end-of-life care or future planning this was respected. Staff understood the importance of revisiting conversations at an appropriate time to ensure people continued to have opportunities to express their wishes and preferences as their needs changed.