Oaklands 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 assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement.

This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to dignity and respect.
 

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We saw people were not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.

We observed several interactions where staff did not communicate respectfully or provide reassurance. For example, staff moved people’s hands away from food without explanation, and a person’s repeated attempts to engage with staff were not acknowledged. We also heard inappropriate language and inappropriate comments about people living with dementia. These interactions did not demonstrate a consistently compassionate or respectful approach.

People’s privacy was not always protected. We observed occasions where people entered other people’s bedrooms and there was limited staff around to offer redirection to protect people’s privacy and ensure safety of their belongings. Although staff knew people entered others’ bedrooms, there were limited measures in place to protect people’s privacy and personal space.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

People experienced periods of limited staff interaction and meaningful engagement. This was particularly concerning for people living with dementia who may rely on staff to initiate communication and engagement.

However, people’s protected characteristics were recognised and recorded within their care plans to ensure staff knew and understood these. The provider also personalised people’s bedrooms, with photographs being available. The provider also celebrated people’s birthdays. For example, it was one person’s birthday prior to our assessment, the provider had decorated their bedroom for the occasion and held a party so they could celebrate with their visiting relatives.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

We found a shower list in one of the communal bathrooms. This showed a list of people’s names who were due to have a shower that day. Throughout the day, we observed staff discuss who was “left to be showered”, with people still receiving showers later in the afternoon.

Care plans stated staff should respect people’s preferred bathing times and methods; however, these individual preferences were not recorded. This meant staff did not have clear information to consistently provide care in accordance with people’s wishes.

Although some activities took place, we observed people spending long periods sitting in communal areas watching television. This indicated opportunities for meaningful engagement based on people’s individual interests could be improved.

However, some activities were available in different areas of the home, and relatives told us they felt the activities provided were good and varied.
 

Arrangements were not always effective in ensuring people’s immediate needs were identified and responded to promptly. At times, people were left in communal areas without staff supervision, increasing the risk that changes in their needs, discomfort or distress could go unnoticed and their needs remain unmet.

However, people and relatives told us they did not generally experience prolonged waits for support and staff responded promptly to their needs. Staff also understood how people who could not communicate verbally might show signs of pain or discomfort. Recognised pain assessment tools were used to help staff identify and respond to these needs.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff.

The provider had arrangements in place to support staff wellbeing and recognise their contribution. Staff could access support including free mental health services and talking therapies. The provider also recognised staff achievements through an ‘employee of the quarter’ scheme, where staff were celebrated and received a gift voucher in recognition of their work.

The management team used electronic messaging systems to communicate with staff, share positive news and recognise individual and team achievements. These approaches aimed to promote staff morale and ensure staff felt valued.

However, feedback from staff about the support they received was limited and mixed. One staff member told us they felt supported by the management team, while another felt the level of management support could be improved. This indicated that, although staff wellbeing and recognition arrangements were in place, the experience of management support was not consistently positive for all staff.