Mile Oak Rest 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

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 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.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs, wishes and preferences. Care plans were on electronic format which staff could easily access. This meant any changes in people’s needs were shared immediately and staff were kept up to date with new information about people they cared for. Care plans contained person-centred details, including their goals, skills, abilities and how to support their emotional and psychological wellbeing, including end of life wishes.
Staff worked closely with people, their relatives and others important to them to ensure all their wishes and feelings were recorded. Staff had spent time with people and their relatives to gain real insight, and demonstrated they knew people, their routines, wishes and preferences very well.
People had personalised bedrooms and people seemed comfortable. One relative told us, “You can clearly see the care home makes sure that [loved one’s] wishes are first and foremost. They always take the time to chat when [loved one] wants to talk, which is often and that they feel comfortable”.
 

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.

Comprehensive assessments were undertaken before people moved into the service and people’s needs were fully reviewed to ensure their suitability for admission to the service, and to facilitate a smooth transition from one service to the other. Staff worked closely with external professionals to maintain consistent support, share relevant information and ensure people experienced seamless transitions between services. Care plans were regularly reviewed and updated so that support remained aligned with people’s changing needs.

Care provision was well‑coordinated, and systems were in place to ensure continuity and integration across health and social care services. Staff made sure the multi-disciplinary team were involved when required. Staff followed any guidance requested and this was clearly documented in people’s care plans; for example, there was input from the diabetic nurse, local GP surgery and community mental health team.
Staff worked hard to co-ordinate people’s appointments, making sure other professionals were aware of the person’s treatment and ongoing needs. One professional told us “Appointments and visits are generally well-coordinated, and there is consistency in how residents are supported during my visits. This contributes positively to continuity of care.”.
 

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

The provider had an Accessible Information Standard policy. The Accessible Information Standard tells organisations what they have to do to help ensure people with a disability or sensory loss, and in some circumstances, their carers, get information in a way they can understand it. It also says that people should get the support they need in relation to communication.
The provider ensured people’s care plans and records captured how people were supported to engage in meaningful communication and decision-making. This enabled people to be active participants in their care if this was their wish. Peoples’ care plans clearly identified communication needs and what staff should do to support communication. This included ensuring people had access to any aids they required, such as prescription glasses and hearing aids.
 

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.

There were effective systems to manage concerns and complaints. A complaint policy was in place that detailed the process of managing complaints. Staff were also able to tell us the process to manage complaints and concerns, which were escalated to management for review.
People and relatives were able to share feedback about their care through regular reviews and surveys. One relative told us, “I know we can contact one of the Managers and senior staff and any concerns are answered and dealt with promptly” and “[Manager] keeps us up to date and if we ask any questions or have any concerns they always reply quickly and act on them”.
We saw systems were in place to obtain feedback from people and involve them in decisions such as regular reviews with people on their care. Quality monitoring systems were in place to obtain feedback from relatives and analyse them.
 

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

People's care records demonstrated that when they required the support and intervention of external health care professionals, this was provided. People were supported to attend health appointments and referrals to external health professionals were made in a timely manner for further assessment and / or guidance. This demonstrated people had access to the care they needed.
People were encouraged and supported to access regular health care reviews with a strong focus on prevention from further health deterioration.
People and relatives told us they had access to health care when needed and did not experience inequalities. They said their rights were promoted and they could share their views about the service through speaking with staff, regular care reviews and feedback forms.
 

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.

The provider complied with legal equality and human rights requirements, including avoiding discrimination, having regard to the needs of people with different protected characteristics and making reasonable adjustments to support equity in experience and outcomes. For example, people with health-related mobility issues were provided with appropriate mobility aids to improve their experience and support independence.
Staff had completed training in equality, diversity and inclusion. The provider had an equality and diversity policy which was in line with legislation and up to date.
 

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.

Staff were aware of people’s wishes for the future, for example whether they wanted to go to hospital for further treatment or whether they wished to remain at Mile Oak Care Home. People’s care plans informed staff whether they had a DNACPR (Do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation). DNACPR documents were shared on their electronic care planning system. People’s lasting powers of attorney were documented in care plans, if people became unable to make decisions themselves. Staff had received training on end-of-life care. The service was not supporting anyone with end-of-life care at the time of inspection.