The Headington 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.

This is the first inspection 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 71 (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.

People’s daily records were task focussed and did not always document people’s moods, or what engagement had taken place. Care plans contained generic information about people’s health conditions such as schizophrenia and dementia; however, they did not always contain information about how conditions impacted people on a day-to-day basis. An external professional said people were sometimes left unwashed, and relatives said their family members did not always appear to have been supported with washing or timely continence care, which affected their dignity.

People’s care plans did not contain guidance or detail on people’s life history, preferences, likes or dislikes. This meant staff were not always able to provide person centred care as they were not always aware of what was important to people

However, we observed staff supporting people to access community shops when they requested. A person’s relative described how satisfied they were with the support and care their loved one had received, built around their needs to ensure they remained safe within the home.

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.

People who were supported by the provider and community team received collaborative, flexible care. External professionals told us staff had improved in working cohesively to meet people’s care needs and took appropriate action when things went wrong.

A core team of staff delivered care, with people mentioning specific staff by name in their feedback to us.

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

We observed staff ensuring they made eye contact with people, whilst bending down to speak with them quietly and clearly. Information was provided in accessible formats, for example, some key documentation was produced in written and pictorial form. The provider used pictures to help people make choices, for example, about meals.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. However, they did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

Relatives told us people’s belongings had gone missing or been found in other areas of the home. We observed staff discussing this on our visits to the service, saying “[Person’s relative] has complained about [person’s] clothes not in their room, I need to find them.”

Records evidenced people sharing feedback and ideas in meetings held at the home, and people’s relatives told us that they were able to raise feedback with staff or the management team. People and their relatives provided mixed feedback about whether they felt listened to, and if change was enacted as a result.

The provider followed their complaints policy and people were able to escalate their complaint if they did not feel satisfied with the outcome.

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

Professionals told us the provider was prepared for their visits to discuss people requiring a medical review, and raised referrals to external support services as required. We observed people accessing care from district nurses, community discharge teams and the GP.

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.

Staff told us they provided meals in accordance with people’s religious beliefs. We observed staff were considerate of people and staff’s protected equality characteristics. People and their relatives did not raise any concerns about being treated less favourably and we did not see any evidence people were experiencing inconsistent care due to their protected characteristics. A person told us they preferred to receive care from staff of the same gender, and this was respected. Where staff were not available in line with their preference, they felt confident to decline assistance. This meant that people could feel respected and treated fairly.

People who lived in the home on a long-term basis 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. Care plans contained information about whether people had a DNACPR or ResPECT form. DNACPR forms are where people can express their wishes about being resuscitated. ResPECT forms are where people’s wishes regarding emergency medical care are recorded when they are unable to express them in the future.

People’s wishes were detailed, for example about the music they wished to have, and the people they wanted the provider to contact. Where people preferred not to participate in these discussions, this was documented in their care plan.