The Oaks Care Home

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Assessment information was included within people’s care plans and senior staff told us people and their relatives are included in the assessment process which meant they were able to capture people’s preferences and wishes.

Senior staff ensured people’s needs were routinely assessed using validated clinical tools.

The care plans were reviewed regularly, and a senior staff member told us they contacted relatives of those people who lack capacity to discuss their care needs when updating care plans. Those with capacity were fully involved in the care planning process. We also saw evidence of emails sent to relatives inviting them to attend in person or via a telephone call.

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.

Oversight of monitoring processes such as food and fluid records, repositioning charts and weight records had improved. Senior staff were instructed to check these charts daily and sign off completion. However, we did note 1 chart did not always correspond with the guidance from the care plan in respect of repositioning. The deputy manager made an adjustment to the oversight form to ensure these charts were checked thoroughly.

A robust process was in place to ensure appropriate referrals were made to other professionals when required. For example, we saw referrals to the dietician when people were losing weight. People were positive about their care and treatment and the food at the service. A person told us, “I am diabetic and can get [unwell], the carer gets a nurse, and they know what to do.” Another person said, “The food I am happy with, I get choice of 2 meals, and every hour they say do you want a tea or coffee, there are plenty of drinks.” A relative told us, “They offer me a meal at £2.50, and it is good and it has improved, the chef has upped their game. They get enough fruit and vegetables, the pear and apple crumble has a big amount of fruit and minimum amount of crumble, they have got that sorted.”

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

The service worked well with partner agencies including dieticians, tissue viability nurses and mental health teams to ensure people received appropriate care and treatment. People had consented to share their information when necessary.

Staff told us they received handover meetings before they started to work to ensure they had an up-to-date picture of people’s needs. A staff member told us, “The nurse informs us about everything in handover. They let us know what is happening.”

Daily flash meetings were also held with all heads of departments so any issues or concerns could be identified quickly.

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

People were involved in the regular review of their health and wellbeing needs, where appropriate. This approach ensured that care remained responsive and aligned with any changes in their condition. People were referred to relevant agencies when needed. We saw evidence of wellbeing support with one person who had an interest in plants. They were assisted with pot planting vegetables outside their room. Light exercise sessions were held regularly to promote physical activity and improve people’s health.

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.

Monthly clinical meetings were held which looked at a variety of information such as safeguarding, accidents and incidents, falls, wounds, complaints and medicine management. This ensured people’s outcomes were discussed with the senior staff to identify any actions requiring follow up. A staff member told us, “I have meetings that include safeguarding, multidisciplinary meetings and internal meetings, I had one yesterday with the head of quality. We also have lessons learned meetings on how we can improve.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 [MCA] provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards [DoLS].

We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty, and whether any conditions relating to those authorisations were being met. People's capacity and ability to consent was considered, and they, or a person lawfully acting on their behalf, were involved in planning, managing and reviewing their care and treatment.

Care plans contained signed documents consenting to care including the taking of appropriate photographs and sharing information. We observed staff gaining consent and asking people their choice during mealtimes and medicine administration. A person told us, “I choose my clothes, I go to activities, and I like the quizzes, I have lunch here in my room and that is my choice.”

Staff had a good understanding of the MCA and had regular training to refresh their knowledge. A staff member told us, “We always have to assume they have capacity and involve people in every decision. We check their mental capacity and work in their best interest; we would involve their family and staff.”