Oat Hill Mews

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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.

People received care which was mostly personalised and responsive. Care plans generally contained good levels of detail and staff knew people well. The service environment and amenities supported people’s day-to-day wellbeing, and feedback from people and relatives was positive about the atmosphere and staff helpfulness.

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 provider worked well with healthcare professionals and families to ensure continuity of care. Relatives described partnership working with the GP, and people’s care was supported by staff who understood their needs and provided ongoing support in a consistent and organised way. One person explained, “I have had some hospital appointments, the staff reminded me and a carer goes with you, they stayed and brought me back.”

A relative told us, “I think it is one of the better homes, it’s like being on a very expensive holiday in a hotel, it is bright and lovely, everything is fit for purpose, lots of space for equipment, all on one level, it is bright and airy. Their food preferences get fed back and acted on.”

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

The provider supplied information in accessible ways. We saw easy read DoLS information, and a practical environment which promoted orientation and independence. Staff communication with inspectors was open and supportive, and relatives told us they were involved in care planning and felt kept informed overall.

Relatives appreciated the contact from the service, with one saying, “Yes, we are given everything we need.” And another relative stated, “Yes, and give me information when I need it.”

The provider mostly made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. The majority of feedback received from people and relatives was positive.

However, a small number of relatives reported difficulty getting an answer on the phone, delays in concerns being actioned, and the manager was not always visible or approachable. One relative said, “I can go to the manager, and I am not sure they listen to me.” Some relatives also shared concerns about not always being informed of the results of routine tests for their family members, such as blood tests.

This meant the provider needed more effective systems to ensure all people and relatives consistently felt listened to and concerns were responded to promptly, with clear communication about actions taken and outcomes achieved.

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

People and relatives told us staff were helpful, and no one said their family member was rushed, which supported timely access to care throughout the day. Relatives also described positive experiences when people needed healthcare support, including the service working in partnership with the GP and responding appropriately when health concerns arose, which helped people to access treatment promptly. The home’s welcoming environment and amenities also supported people to access day-to-day support in ways which promoted wellbeing and inclusion, and staff were encouraged to think creatively about further improving access to meaningful experiences for people living at the service. Overall, people were able to access the right care at the right time, and systems in place supported people to receive the help they needed to stay well and maintain a good quality of life.

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.

People experienced an inclusive environment and positive day-to-day interactions. Staff were described as helpful and caring, and the service culture supported people’s wellbeing. The home environment, amenities and staff approach supported equality of experience and good outcomes for people living at the service.

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 and relatives were involved in care planning, which supported forward planning and continuity. One relative said, “I did this early on, and [family member] was involved too.” Another relative stated, “I chose the home as they can look after [family member] until the end.”

Staff had received training in end-of-life care.