Three Oaks Residential 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.

Records showed an assessment of people's needs had been completed before they moved into the home. Care plans contained detailed guidance to staff on how to meet the needs identified.

People’s communication methods were outlined within their care plans to enable them to receive care and treatment which worked for them. Care plans we looked at identified any difficulties with communication, such as hearing or speech.

People's daily records showed they were continually involved in how their care and support was delivered and how risks were managed. People’s relatives, where appropriate, were involved in the development of people’s care plans and risk assessment.

Nationally recognised assessment tools were used, including an escalation tool used to assess people’s clinical condition when people became unwell. Concerns were escalated quickly and acted on. Support from specialist teams was sought when required.

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 spoke positively about the food provided. Their comments included: “It’s very good”; “I’ve got a jacket potato today because I didn’t like either of the choices. They will change it for you”; “It’s really good. She’s a vegetarian and they cook separate meals for her” and “They always accommodate me and understand my allergies.”

We observed lunch being served in the dining room. One person was being supported to eat by a member of staff. This was done at the person’s own pace and in a gentle and dignified way. There was a choice of two main meals and staff made sure people had what they wanted. The food looked and smelled appetising. A person who was visiting said how much they enjoyed the meal and sent their compliments to the chef.

Each person had an eating and drinking support plan that was kept under review. Staff monitored people’s diet and provided support where appropriate. Care and kitchen staff were aware of people’s individual dietary needs, and we saw these were being met. For example, people that were assessed as requiring a modified diet, had their meals prepared to the correct texture.

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.

Feedback from people and their relatives confirmed staff supported people to access the health care they needed. Relatives told us they were informed about any changes in their family members health and wellbeing.

Staff told us, and records showed, that the service communicated regularly and as needed with external health and social care professionals. We observed the registered manager during a telephone call advocating strongly for a resident who was currently in hospital, to obtain a clear diagnosis and plan for the person returning home.

We received positive feedback from 3 health and social care professionals about how the service worked with them, which demonstrated there was good communication between the home and external partners.

Records showed people were supported to access healthcare services when they needed them. For example, staff had contacted the GP after observing a person was short of breath. Following further monitoring and information sharing with the GP, the person was diagnosed with and treated for a medical condition.

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.

Feedback from people and their relatives told us the service supported people to maintain their health and wellbeing.

Staff informed us they had good relationships with community health professionals. For example, staff had contacted a person’s GP about a health issue. Following a review of medicines, observations and further blood tests, a diagnosis was reached and no further action required.

The GP visited the home regularly to discuss people’s health support. A health care professional told us, “They are very proactive and supportive of our shared care approach, which enables (care staff) to manage basic wounds and pressureulcers, giving them autonomy to change dressings etc and they always promptly send the photographs when required.We have very good communication with them.”

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.

Managers and staff had daily meetings and handovers that ensured people’s care and support needs were discussed and monitored. Care plans showed evidence of reviews and updates, which meant people’s records reflected their current needs.

Monthly incident audits were used to monitor accidents and incidents, including falls and safeguarding issues. The audit reports showed what actions were required and taken in response to identified issues.

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

Staff had received training in relation to The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), which provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves.

The registered manager and staff understood the importance of seeking people’s consent and supporting them in the least restrictive ways. Care plans provided staff with guidance about how to involve people as fully as possible in making decisions. We observed staff asking people’s consent before providing care and support.

One person received their medicines covertly. A mental capacity assessment and best interest decision had been recorded, with the involvement of external health professionals including guidance on how the medicine should be given.