Haywood 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 good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices, and they did not consistently work in partnership with people to decide how to respond to relevant changes in people’s needs.

People and their relatives told us they were not regularly involved in reviewing care plans and had not been supported to see or contribute to them. This meant people were not always fully involved in decisions about how their care was planned or delivered. Whilst everyone we spoke with said they felt safe with the care provided, they told us they would like to be more involved in care planning and review processes.

One person told us, “I’ve not had anything discussed with myself.” A relative also said, “We did some paperwork before [Name] arrived, but we’ve not had any dealings with a care plan.” This feedback showed that although care was delivered safely, people and their families were not always meaningfully involved in shaping or reviewing care in a way that reflected their preferences and changing needs.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, ensuring care was joined‑up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. Staff had a good understanding of people’s individual health needs and were aware of the professionals involved in their ongoing care. They worked collaboratively with other stakeholders, including the local authority and a range of healthcare professionals, to promote coordinated and consistent support.

Care plans contained clear guidance for staff regarding people’s annual health checks and monitoring requirements linked to their specific conditions. This supported staff to ensure people received timely and appropriate healthcare and helped maintain continuity across different services involved in people’s care.

These approaches meant people experienced well‑coordinated, integrated care that met their needs and supported positive health outcomes.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up‑to‑date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People and those important to them were not consistently given access to, or involved in, care plans. This limited people’s ability to understand how their care was planned and reduced opportunities for them and their relatives to contribute to decision‑making and ongoing reviews.

Relatives also told us that they did not always receive information about changes within the home in a way that was accessible to them. Some relatives said updates were mainly shared through social media, which not everyone used. One relative told us, “There is no relatives’ meetings or anything like that. Updates seem to go on social media and I don’t use it, so I don’t always know what’s happening.”

This meant relatives were sometimes unaware of changes within the service, which reduced their ability to remain informed and involved.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff actively involved people in decisions about their care and kept them informed about what had changed as a result of their feedback.

People told us they felt listened to and valued. The service held regular residents’ meetings, which gave people opportunities to share their views and influence day‑to‑day life within the home. People were encouraged to give feedback on areas such as activities and menu choices through a monthly residents meeting, and staff explained how people’s suggestions were considered and acted upon.

One person told us, “We have a resident meeting every month or so and they ask us about our ideas – they want us to be happy.” This demonstrated a positive culture of engagement where people were supported to have a voice and contribute to decisions that affected their lives. As a result, people felt involved, respected and confident that their views mattered.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. People were supported to attend appointments whether planned or required urgently. Staff had completed training in equality and diversity to ensure they understood the importance of recognising and addressing inequalities, and reducing any potential prejudice or barriers people may experience.

These approaches supported people to receive timely healthcare, ensured fair access to services and promoted an inclusive environment where everyone’s needs were recognised and respected.

The provider did not consistently demonstrate that equity in experiences and outcomes was actively promoted. Leaders and staff did not always listen to, recognise, or respond effectively to information about people who were more likely to experience inequality, and care was not always tailored to meet individual needs.

There was limited evidence that the service had sufficiently identified or addressed barriers that may negatively impact people’s experiences or outcomes. For example, the home did not have dementia‑friendly signage in place, which may have affected the ability of people living with dementia to navigate the environment independently and safely.

This indicated that reasonable adjustments were not consistently considered or embedded to ensure people received inclusive, person‑centred care.

People were supported to plan for important life changes so they had sufficient time and support to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

At the time of the assessment, no one using the service was receiving end‑of‑life care. However, where appropriate, people’s wishes had been sensitively discussed, recorded and respected. This meant that people were given the opportunity to express their preferences in advance, helping ensure their views would be known and acted upon should their needs change.

Care plans also contained clear guidance for staff on how people wished to be supported in the event of an emergency or sudden illness. This helped staff respond promptly and consistently while maintaining people’s dignity, comfort and individual preferences.