The Oaks Care 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 changed to 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.

Care plans were tailored to reflect each individual’s preferences, strengths, and support needs. Staff were observed engaging with people in a friendly manner, taking time to understand their personal histories, routines, and communication styles. Staff consulted people or their relatives when updating care plans.

Staff understood what person-centred care meant and how to put it into practice. A staff member told us, “I call people my friends, [person] goes to [supermarket] weekly. Whatever people want to do I try to accommodate.” Another staff member said, “Person centred care is about the individual so we see them as a person. One person we support is very particular about their meals and only drinks coffee.”

The service used the “Resident of the Day” initiative, where a specific resident is highlighted and celebrated. For instance, one person had a personalised playlist made for them by the activity lead, which was well received by the person. Staff used the opportunity to revisit the resident’s care plan, preferences, and any outstanding needs.

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.

The service demonstrated a positive approach to care provision, with evidence of multidisciplinary meetings, personalised care planning, and efforts to ensure continuity of care across teams and shifts.

People received mostly consistent care from staff who had got to know them well.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People and, where appropriate their relatives received information about the service in formats that met their needs if requested. Events and information were on display throughout the service. People’s communication needs were clearly recorded within care plans.

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.

Listening and involving people is central to continuous improvement in care settings. This had been achieved through a variety of approaches which included questionnaires to gather feedback from people, relatives, and staff. Regular resident and relative meetings were held, and the manager had created a resident and relative committee to encourage people and relatives to take an active role within the service.

The response to complaints had significantly improved and people’s and their relatives’ concerns were fully investigated. People and relatives knew who to speak with and the current leadership in place. A person told us, “The manager is very good and the deputy, easy to talk to, got no complaints and give them 9 out of 10.”

A ‘You said/We did board was on display in the service. People and relatives had requested additional activities and as a result another activity staff member had been recruited.

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

Care plans clearly recorded people’s access to health and social care professionals. Staff now ensured people and relatives were involved with care planning and feedback processes. Staff understood people’s individual needs and how they preferred their care and treatment. Advocacy services were available for people who required them.

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.

Changes to the leadership at the service meant people’s outcomes were now being closely monitored to prevent inequality. People’s access to communal areas and the equipment needed to support this access were clear to staff. Whilst we observed some people chose to remain in their rooms care plans were clear about this being people’s choice or if there was a clinical reason. Staff told us people had the appropriate equipment to facilitate this access, and they could choose where they wanted to spend their day. A staff member said, “We have enough chairs and staff. One person’s history meant they never left their previous flat, but we will still ask them.”

The manager told us, “In the beginning I started treating people equally, everyone has capacity, we all come from diverse backgrounds, we have a gentleman from [another country] so I supported staff to try to understand people paths and respect this.”

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 cared for and supported at the end of their lives. The service worked with local hospice services and other professionals to ensure their needs and preferences were met. Care plans included people’s preferred priorities for care and respect documents so nurses and care staff were clear about people’s wishes and preferences.