Four Oaks 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 assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained 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.

Care plans and risk assessments reflected people's individual needs, preferences, routines and risks. Records reviewed demonstrated care was regularly reviewed and updated when people's health, wellbeing or support requirements changed. Staff were able to describe the people they supported, including what was important to them, how they preferred to receive care and the support required to meet their individual needs safely and effectively.

People and their representatives were involved in decisions about care and support. Family involvement was evident within care planning reviews, MCA assessments and Best Interest decision-making processes where appropriate. Professional recommendations from healthcare staff were incorporated into care plans and support arrangements, helping ensure care remained responsive to changing circumstances.

Staff demonstrated an understanding care should be tailored to the individual rather than delivered through standardised routines. Governance systems, including care plan reviews and resident review processes, supported the ongoing assessment of people's needs and preferences.
 

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 benefited from care that was coordinated across the service and with external healthcare professionals. Professional advice was incorporated into care plans and monitored through ongoing review processes, helping to ensure care remained consistent when people's needs changed.

Systems were in place to support continuity of care, including comprehensive admission assessments, medicines reconciliation processes, multidisciplinary discussions and care plan reviews. Staff described how information was shared through handovers, governance meetings and electronic care records to ensure people received consistent support. Concerns relating to nutrition, medicines, wound care and deteriorating health were reviewed promptly and referred to appropriate healthcare professionals when required.

Staff understood referral pathways and were able to explain how changes in people's needs were communicated and acted upon.
 

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

People and their representatives were provided with information about their care and support through regular communication, care planning reviews and ongoing discussions with staff and managers. Records reviewed demonstrated family involvement in decisions relating to people's care, health and wellbeing, and there was evidence information regarding nutritional risks, medicines reviews, healthcare involvement and changes in support arrangements was shared appropriately.

The provider maintained communication with people and relatives regarding significant events and service developments. Relatives were consulted about the ongoing building works through meetings, written updates and engagement sessions, and the provider responded to questions and concerns raised. Evidence showed people and their families were generally kept informed about changes affecting their care and support.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people's needs and were able to explain support arrangements, clinical interventions and changes in care.
 

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.

People and their relatives were encouraged to share their views about the service through reviews, meetings and ongoing discussions with staff and managers. Comments, concerns and feedback were considered through governance processes and there was evidence issues raised by people, families and stakeholders had informed service improvements. This was particularly evident in relation to medicines governance, nutrition and hydration oversight, risk management arrangements and the provider's response to concerns about the building works.

The provider maintained regular engagement with relatives and demonstrated a willingness to listen and respond when concerns were raised. Consultation meetings relating to the building works provided opportunities for relatives to express their views, and the provider introduced mitigation measures and ongoing communication arrangements in response to feedback. Family involvement was also evident within care planning reviews, MCA processes and Best Interest decision-making.
 

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

People had access to healthcare services and specialist support when needs changed or concerns were identified. Records demonstrated timely referrals to healthcare professionals. People with increased health needs, nutritional risks or complex conditions received enhanced oversight and support to help ensure their needs were met.

The home environment was accessible and supported people to access communal facilities, dining areas, activities and visitor spaces. Whilst the building works had reduced access to some areas, the provider introduced mitigation measures to maintain access to communal spaces and support opportunities for social interaction and family visits. Staff demonstrated an awareness of people’s individual needs and adapted support when health, mobility or dependency levels changed.

People and relatives generally reported that support was available when needed and records evidenced appropriate escalation to healthcare services when concerns arose.
 

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 understood people experienced differing levels of risk, dependency and support needs; systems were in place to identify and monitor those individuals requiring enhanced oversight. Evidence reviewed showed particular focus on people subject to nutritional risk, medicines monitoring, falls prevention, pressure care management and restrictive practice arrangements. Governance systems were routinely used to identify people at increased risk and support timely intervention where required.

People received support based upon their individual assessed needs rather than a standardised approach. Clinical risks, communication needs, health conditions and levels of dependency were generally reflected within assessments, care plans and monitoring arrangements. Safeguarding reviews, nutritional monitoring and healthcare involvement all demonstrated efforts to ensure people experiencing greater vulnerability received appropriate support. Whilst some areas of documentation quality needed improving, the provider was working to ensure people experienced equitable care, access to support and opportunities for positive outcomes regardless of the complexity of their needs.
 

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.

The provider had arrangements in place to identify and plan for changes in people’s health, wellbeing and support needs. Care plans, risk assessments and review processes considered people’s changing dependency levels, nutritional risks, mobility, long-term health conditions and increasing care requirements. People were supported to discuss and record their wishes and preferences for future care and support where appropriate. This helped ensure future decisions reflected what was important to them and their changing needs.

Staff worked with people, relatives and healthcare professionals to review care when circumstances changed. Changes in health, nutrition, wound care needs and mobility were monitored through established governance and review systems, with referrals made and support arrangements adapted where required. Family involvement was evident within care planning, MCA and Best Interest processes, and professional advice informed future planning and risk management.