Oakleigh Residential 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 inspection, we rated this key question requires improvement. At this inspection the rating has remained requires improvement.

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulations in relation to providing person-centred care that reflected people’s individual needs and preferences.

This service scored 61 (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 always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care was not always person-centred. Some care plans contained information that was not relevant to the person, including reference to a condition that did not apply to them, which reduced their effectiveness in guiding personalised care and support.

People's preferences were not always reflected in practice. For example, one person's care plan stated they preferred their doorway and exit route to remain clear, however this was not maintained.

Some support plans appeared to have been developed or updated after concerns were raised during the inspection, rather than proactively identifying and responding to people's needs.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Systems to support the continuity and coordination of care were not always effective. Care records were not consistently reviewed, maintained or updated. We found records requiring review since March 2026 had not been completed or allocated for review.

Care information was not always current, complete or consistently reflected in practice. This reduced assurance that staff had access to accurate information about people's needs and support arrangements. As a result, people were at risk of receiving care that was not consistently delivered in line with their current needs and preferences.

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 did not always have access to clear information about decisions affecting their care. Records did not consistently demonstrate how information had been shared with people and their representatives, including when restrictions affecting their care and support were introduced.

Leaders told us they had resources to support people with different communication needs, and we saw some easy-read information displayed within the service. However, the provider could not demonstrate how people with sensory loss were supported to access information in formats that met their individual needs. This reduced assurance that people always received information in a way they could understand and use.

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.

The provider had systems in place to seek feedback from people and those important to them. These included resident meetings, relatives' meetings, resident of the day discussions and a complaints procedure. People and their relatives were given opportunities to share their views about the service and raise concerns.

Relatives told us they felt able to speak with staff and managers and raise issues when needed.

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

People had access to healthcare professionals and specialist services when required. The provider worked with external agencies and healthcare professionals to support people's care and treatment needs.

People were supported to attend appointments and access healthcare services.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

The provider did not always demonstrate how care and support had been adapted to meet people's individual needs and circumstances. We found examples where care planning, behavioural support arrangements and environmental adaptations did not fully reflect people's assessed needs.

We also identified people whose needs were not fully aligned with the service environment. This reduced assurance that barriers to positive experiences and outcomes had been identified and addressed, or that people were consistently supported to achieve outcomes that reflected their individual needs and circumstances.

As a result, people could not always be assured they would receive care and support tailored to their needs, preferences and desired outcomes.

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's future wishes and preferences were generally recorded. Advance care planning arrangements were available where required, helping to ensure people's preferences for future care and support could be understood and respected.