Mile Oak Rest 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

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 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.

Assessments were completed before care commenced, and staff confirmed they understood people’s current needs. The home operated a ‘resident of the day’ ensuring people’s care needs and wishes were regularly reviewed with them.
Staff told us if there were any changes to people’s assessed needs and support plans, they were kept up to date. One member of staff told us, “Staff treat the residents as individuals, if they feel a resident’s needs have changed, they report it so the changes can be made. For example, when one resident’s health deteriorated, it was felt they needed an air flow mattress. This was changed as soon as possible”.
 

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.

Assessments of people’s needs were comprehensive, expected outcomes were identified, regularly reviewed and updated. Staff recognised and responded promptly and adequately to people’s changing needs. Appropriate referrals to external services such as the dietitian or occupational therapist were made in a timely manner to make sure people’s needs were met.

People's care plans outlined their food and drink preferences, including where they chose to eat. Systems were in place to monitor people's nutritional intake and weight, and risks associated with dehydration and malnutrition. Care plans identified the level of support people needed from staff to prevent malnutrition and dehydration, and this information was available to the staff working in the kitchen.

Risk assessments for people using the service were in place. These included how to support their emotional and psychological wellbeing.
 

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.

Care plans included information about people’s health conditions and were updated regularly to reflect their changing needs. The service used an electronic care planning system and staff told us this made information easily accessible.

Hospital passports had been developed to ensure easy information sharing. Staff worked well together and completed handovers to ensure all staff were updated on people’s care and health.

We received positive feedback from a care professional that responded to our request about communication with the home and collaborative working., “Communication between staff and visiting professionals, including myself, has been effective. Relevant information is shared appropriately, and staff are cooperative in supporting safe care practices, particularly when coordinating care for residents who may be accessing multiple services”.
 

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.

The provider had positive relationships with health and social care professionals in their locality. People's care records demonstrated they had been supported to access relevant health services, for example district nurses. This was evident in care plans where reviews had documented advice had been sought in relation to changing needs.
People were supported to have a balanced diet which contained a good variety of healthy food choices. The chef knew the residents well and told us how they discuss any dietary requirements with people and the management team to ensure people’s needs and preferences were met. People were happy with the quality of the food.
 

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.

The provider established robust processes for monitoring the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support and ensuring actions were taken to continuously improve it.

The provider actively sought and considered feedback from people, their relatives, professionals and stakeholders as appropriate when monitoring individual outcomes. Results were used to drive improvement. One person told us, “I didn’t want to come here and hated it at first. I only agreed as long as I could have a large room. My room at first was small but when a bigger room became available, they moved me and it is my dream room”.
There were regular residents’ meetings where people expressed their opinions, wishes and preferences. We received positive feedback from relatives about their involvement in driving improvements. Comments included, “We can see they are constantly making improvements”, “We have completed surveys and they had feedback meetings” and “I believe all families were contacted and changes have been made accordingly”.
 

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

Staff received training in the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and understand the principles of the best interest process in accordance with legal requirements, when a person lacked capacity to consent to the arrangements for their care and treatment. Consent forms were completed but some had not been signed by the person as it was recorded as verbally obtained on their electronic record. This was discussed with the manager who immediately implemented consent forms allowing people to sign themselves. Shortly after the inspection, the manager shared evidence of these completed forms.

A professional told us, “I asked Mile Oak to obtain consent for all the residents to allow continuity of care, they obliged and promptly sent me them. I was able to liaise with the Surgery, and all the residents have Online access”.

People spoken with confirmed staff sought their consent before commencing care and treatment. One person mentioned, “Staff always knock before they come in my room”.

People and their relatives told us they were involved in their care decisions and staff respected those decisions. People were able to make day to day decisions about their lives. For example, they were supported to choose what they would like to wear or how to spend their time as they wished.