Oaklands Care 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 as 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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the service to ensure their care and support needs could be met. Assessments considered people’s physical and mental health, communication needs and individual circumstances. The registered manager told us key care plans were developed before admission, with full care plans and risk assessments completed within 48 hours. These were further developed as staff got to know people and understand their preferences and routines.

People’s families and relevant health and social care professionals were involved in the assessment process where appropriate. This supported a joined-up approach to assessing and planning people’s care.

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.

Recognised clinical assessment tools were used to identify and monitor risks. This included pressure ulcer assessments to identify people at risk of developing pressure damage to their skin.

There was ongoing monitoring of people’s nutritional needs. The registered manager completed monthly weight audits and records showed action was taken when concerns were identified, including referrals to dietitians where required.

Where people had specific dietary needs, these were clearly documented within their care plans. Kitchen staff were aware of people’s assessed needs and understood how to prepare meals appropriately, supporting people to receive food safely and in accordance with their individual dietary requirements.

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 developed positive working relationships with a range of external health and social care professionals to support people's care and treatment needs. Staff worked with services including district nurses, GPs, dementia liaison teams and the community mental health team. Regular multi-disciplinary working was evident, with weekly ward rounds taking place.

Internal communication systems were also in place to support information sharing between staff. Staff completed daily handover meetings where key information about people, risks and changing needs was communicated.

Relatives we spoke with shared how the service has good relationships with external professionals, such as the GP, district nursing team and social workers.

The provider supported people to manage their health and well-being. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible.

Where people had known medical conditions, such as epilepsy or Parkinson’s disease, care plans provided staff with guidance about potential side effects, signs of deterioration and the action they should take. For people living with epilepsy, this included information about when rescue medicines should be administered.

People’s known health conditions were clearly highlighted on an overview page within the electronic care planning system. This meant important health information was easily accessible to staff to support them in responding to people’s needs.

Care plans also contained guidance about recognising and responding to illness and deterioration, including sepsis, chest infections, respiratory conditions and urinary tract infections (UTI). However, the provider acknowledged that some of this guidance needed to be improved to ensure staff had consistently clear and comprehensive information about how to respond to changes in people’s health. The provider responded promptly during the assessment and began making the required improvements.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

We found improvements were needed in how the provider monitored the delivery of people’s care and used records to assure themselves that people’s needs were being met. Some records we reviewed showed gaps of up to 8.5 hours in repositioning for people whose care plans identified they required pressure relieving support every 2 hours. This meant there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate people consistently received repositioning at the frequency assessed as necessary and placed them at risk of their care needs not being met as planned.

We observed staff completing care records in bulk, rather than recording support at the time it was provided. As a result, we could not be fully assured these records provided an accurate and contemporaneous account of the care people received.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

The provider acted in accordance with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Where people’s capacity to make specific decisions was in doubt, appropriate mental capacity assessments had been completed. These assessments were decision-specific and considered people's ability to understand, retain, weigh up and communicate information relevant to the decision being made. Where people lacked capacity to make certain decisions, best interest decision-making processes had been followed.

Staff received training in MCA, which provided them with knowledge about mental capacity and consent. This supported staff to understand the importance of involving people in decisions about their care and respecting their right to make choices wherever they were able to do so.