Whiteoaks 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 – 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. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People were assessed prior to moving into the service. Care plans and risk assessments were completed with people and regularly reviewed. We found some risk assessments lacked detail, for example care plans relating to catheters stated, ‘ensure straps are placed correctly’ but did not detail what the correct placements should be. However, staff could describe the correct process to follow, people had capacity and were able to direct their care which mitigated the risk to them. Mobility care plans did not always describe what was in place to mitigate risks of falls to people. The provider told us they were in the process of reviewing and updating everyone’s care plans and risk assessments to make them more robust. People and relatives told us they were involved in the assessment of their needs. One relative told us, “When my relative came here, within 3 to 4 months we reviewed all of the care plans and risk assessments.”

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. Universally recognised tools were used to continually assess people’s needs, such as relating to skin health and nutrition; however, these were not always completed with all of the relevant information which meant the score did not always show an accurate picture of the persons needs. The provider took responsive action to update these and to ensure they were completed accurately going forward. Staff recorded food and fluid intake to ensure people had sufficient fluids and nutrition. Where additional support was required, the staff made referrals to relevant health care professionals.

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. The provider had a care plan summary for each person which could be printed out and used when people were accessing hospital 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. People and their families told us, and we observed, people had a nutritionally balanced diet and were supported to see medical professionals when required. One person told us, “The food is good, I had salad today which was excellent.”

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. Staff worked collaboratively to plan and deliver people’s care, reduce risks, and achieve best outcomes for them. A relative told us, “[Person’s name] had a fall in their room, within 2 days there was a pressure mat on their floor to alert staff of further incidents.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. People living at the service had capacity and told us they were involved in any decisions about their care and treatment. Because all people had capacity, no one living at the service had a deprivation of liberty (DoLS) authorisation in place.