Oat Hill Mews

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 67 (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.

People and relatives told us they were involved in care planning and staff understood their family members’ needs. Staff could explain people’s support needs and the approaches used to meet them, including practical detail around eating and drinking needs. One person did comment staff lacked confidence in shaving them.

One relative explained, “I think [staff] have been fantastic through all this process, I have Power of Attorney, and it has been a very difficult process with [family member]. The [staff member] doing the initial assessments welcomed us and helped us, and the deputy manager - they assessed [family member]and really tailored the situation to them personally.”

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.

The provider delivered care in line with people’s needs and best practice. The chef was knowledgeable and people and relatives were positive about meals, with feedback food was “very good.” People’s eating and drinking needs were understood by staff, including practical knowledge such as portioning and fluid volumes. One person said, “I was very impressed, the food is good and I manage to eat it all.”

Staff were knowledgeable regarding nationally recognised tools. One staff member explained, “National tools help assess risks and plan care. For example: Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) is used to identify people at risk of malnutrition. Waterlow Score helps assess the risk of pressure sores. These assessments guide care planning and help ensure the right support is provided.”

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.

People told us the home worked in partnership with the GP. Staff were able to describe processes for escalation and ongoing health support, which supported continuity of care and effective responses to changes in people’s needs.

Relatives told us the home worked well with the GP, supporting joined-up care and appropriate escalation when people’s health needs changed.

Some relatives did state they were not always advised of the outcomes of routine tests, such as blood tests.

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 supported to maintain their health and wellbeing, including through good nutrition and hydration and partnership working with healthcare services. Staff described understanding and actions they would take in the event of an infection outbreak.

One relative was happy to explain, “It is beautiful and has air conditioning and it has everything we needed for [family member]. We met the team and had a look around and it is second to none. Things get better and there is an activities lady and [family member] has made friends and goes to the activities and enjoys it. I look at the menu and activities, and it is fantastic, you can go where you want in the home. There are trips organised in the minibus in the summer.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The provider had systems to monitor outcomes, but records did not always provide consistent assurance all aspects of care were delivered and monitored as planned. During offsite review, we found oral care was not recorded at all for one person and was not recorded regularly for another. Where a person was independent with oral care, this needed to be clearly documented so staff could evidence support was not required and risks were appropriately considered. These issues meant monitoring and recording processes required improvement to ensure leaders and staff could evidence care was delivered consistently and review outcomes effectively.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

The provider did not always operate in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and best interest decision-making requirements. We identified mental capacity assessments for 1 person did not consider a range of decision areas relevant to the person’s daily care and treatment. Records evidenced only a limited number of decisions had been assessed, and other key areas required consideration, including personal care, medicines administration, oral hygiene, weekly weighs and wound monitoring.

Best interest decision records did not clearly show options considered, why the chosen approach was the least restrictive option, the risks if decisions were not made or followed, or how the person’s wishes had been established. Oversight of MCA and best interest decision-making required strengthening to ensure assessments were comprehensive, accurate and consistently quality checked, particularly because multiple people living at the service may be affected by these issues.

The registered manager acknowledged these shortfalls and advised they would review this area and make improvements.