Oaklands

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.

Care plans contained person-centred information that enabled staff to know what care and support people needed. People told us that staff knew them well and they had been involved in developing their care plans in line with their needs and preferences. A relative told us, “They know [my relative] well. They talk to them about their interests and reminisce about their achievements in life.” A member of staff said, “The care plans have all the information we need and they are updated regularly.”

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.

We could not get direct feedback from people in relation to care provision, integration and continuity. However, staff understood people’s needs, for health, wellbeing and their cultural needs, for example, people were supported with their faith and choices of services they accessed, such as local charities and support groups.

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

People told us they were provided with the information they needed about their care and support and had access to systems that allowed them to communicate more effectively. Staff confirmed people’s needs to have information in an accessible format was assessed and recorded. These needs were met and reviewed to support people’s care and treatment in line with the Accessible Information Standard. Staff confirmed they supported people to access and understand information relevant to them.
Policies, such as safeguarding and complaints, could be provided to people in formats which were accessible for them. If required, people were able to use alternative forms of communication in their care plans and risk assessments to ensure their understanding, for example, using pictorial information or large print.

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 said they would speak up if they had any concerns and were confident they would be listened to. Feedback from staff confirmed they actively listened and involved people. They described how they communicated with people in a way they understood, and which was meaningful to them. There were also opportunities for people to make a complaint or feedback to staff at any time. Any concerns raised were treated professionally and as an opportunity to learn.

Processes, such as resident and relatives’ meetings and surveys were in place to ensure people’s voices were heard. People had given feedback around ideas for food choices and activities. One person told us, “The chef asks us whether we like the food and what we would like to see on the menu.”

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

Feedback from staff and partners confirmed people had free choice and access to any external service provisions they required. Processes were in place to ensure people did not experience any barriers in accessing the care and support they required.

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.

We could not get direct feedback from people in relation to equity in experiences and outcomes. However, feedback we received from staff and documentation we saw showed that people, sometimes with support, were in control of their care.

Staff had completed training around Equality, Diversity and Human Rights (EDHR), which helped to recognise, promote and protect people's protected characteristics. Staff showed a good awareness of what discrimination meant and how to challenge any concerns. Processes were in place to help ensure people’s care, treatment and support promoted equality, removed barriers and protected their rights.

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.

Details around people’s wishes and decisions were recorded in their care plans. These included any outcomes and goals for the future and also plans at the end of their life. A relative told us, “Plans were made to care for [my relative] in the event of any deterioration, and no hospital admission as this would be against their wishes.” The registered manager spoke with kindness and compassion for people about their decisions at the end of their life and how they can be supported.