Oakleigh Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last inspection, we rated this key question good. At this inspection the rating has remained good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People were not always treated with kindness, compassion and respect in practice. During the inspection, we observed occasions where staff did not always respond to people in a patient and person-centred way. For example, when one person asked staff to be patient during mealtime support, their request was not acknowledged, which negatively affected their experience of care.

We also observed occasions where people called out for help or shouted in distress. Staff did not always approach people to offer reassurance or explore the cause of their distress. Instead, staff told us this was normal for the person and that the behaviour would stop. This reduced assurance that people consistently received compassionate and emotionally responsive support.

However, relatives provided positive feedback about staff attitudes and described care as respectful and supportive. People were generally described as being treated well and supported in a way that maintained their dignity.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People were generally supported in line with their individual needs. Relatives told us staff knew people well and understood their routines, likes and dislikes.

Relatives were positive about the way staff treated people and the care they provided. One relative, when speaking about a member of staff, told us, "They're the best here." Feedback indicated that staff generally recognised people as individuals and responded to their preferences and needs.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were generally supported to make choices about their daily lives. Relatives told us staff offered choices and involved people in decisions about their care, including daily routines and meal options.

People were supported to maintain aspects of their independence where possible and access services that were important to them, such as hairdressing and chiropody. Relatives spoke positively about the support provided and felt staff encouraged people to make choices and retain control over their day-to-day lives.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were not always consistently responsive to people's immediate needs. While relatives told us staff were generally available and attentive, this was not consistently reflected in observed practice.

During the inspection, we observed variation in response times to call bells and requests for assistance. At some points, people received timely support. However, there were occasions where noticeable delays occurred before staff responded, meaning people's needs were not always met promptly.

Overall, these observations demonstrated inconsistent responsiveness, and people did not always receive timely, person-centred support when they needed it.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they felt supported in their roles and described positive working relationships with managers. Staff said managers were approachable and available when advice or support was needed.

Staff described shift patterns as generally manageable and told us they felt able to raise concerns about their work schedules and wellbeing. They said managers listened to concerns and were willing to adjust where possible.