Oaklands 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 as 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, and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People did not always experience care that was consistently person-centred. At times, we observed limited meaningful interaction between staff and people, and some language and comments used by staff did not demonstrate a consistently respectful or individualised approach. We also identified gaps in some care plans, where important, personalised information about people’s preferences, routines and individual needs was not always recorded.

However, we also observed examples of positive and responsive care. We saw some people engage in activities, including a ball game, and we saw staff use positive approaches to de-escalate a situation when 2 people became agitated. Staff also responded appropriately when a person said they felt unwell, demonstrating awareness of their immediate needs.

Overall, care plans contained some person-centred information and showed involvement from relatives and relevant professionals.

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.

The provider made minimal use of agency staff, which meant people were generally supported by a consistent staff team who had opportunities to become familiar with their individual needs, routines and preferences. This was particularly important for people living with dementia, who could benefit from familiar approaches to their care.

The registered manager described working alongside relatives and relevant health and care professionals involved in people’s care. This supported a joined-up approach and helped ensure information about people’s changing needs could be shared with those involved in their support.

Staff had also completed enhanced training relevant to the needs of people living at the home. This included dementia care, bipolar disorder, paranoia, personality disorder, learning disability and autism, and anxiety. This provided staff with additional knowledge to support people with a range of individual and sometimes complex needs.

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

The provider assessed people's communication requirements before they moved into the service to help ensure staff understood how best to support them. Pre-admission assessments identified any communication needs, including whether people required specific support, adaptations or approaches to help them express their views and understand information. This information was then reflected within people's care plans to guide staff in providing personalised support.

Staff had received training in information governance, confidentiality and communicating effectively which helped them understand the importance of sharing information appropriately while maintaining people's confidentiality and privacy.

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.

The provider had systems in place to gather feedback from people using the service and their relatives, including regular resident and relatives' meetings and surveys. These provided opportunities for people to discuss their experiences, raise suggestions and contribute to the ongoing development of the service.

People and their relatives told us they knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint if they needed to. They expressed confidence that any concerns would be listened to and addressed appropriately by the management team. Relatives who had raised concerns previously told us these had been dealt with promptly and to their satisfaction.

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

People had access to appropriate equipment, including walking aids and adapted cutlery, according to their individual needs.

Although some aspects of the environment required improvement for people living with dementia, the home had been adapted in ways intended to support people living with dementia to find their way around more easily. There was clear signage and the use of contrasting colours, including yellow doors for bathrooms, to help people identify important areas. Memory boxes were positioned outside people’s bedrooms to provide familiar visual prompts and help people recognise their own rooms.

However, we found some environmental features could potentially cause confusion. For example, decorative features such as imitation letterboxes and door knockers. For people living with dementia, these features did not always provide clear or meaningful information about their surroundings.

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.

People and their relatives consistently told us they felt people were treated fairly and with respect, regardless of their background, characteristics or individual circumstances. Feedback indicated staff provided care in a non-discriminatory way and sought to ensure people received support that met their individual needs.

The provider supported staff to understand and promote equality through mandatory training in equality and diversity. This helped staff to recognise and respect people's differences, values and beliefs, and to provide care that was inclusive and person-centred. Staff were therefore equipped with the knowledge to support people in a way that respected their individual identities and protected them from discrimination.

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 recognised the importance of having sensitive and person-centred conversations with people and those important to them to ensure future care reflected their values, choices and beliefs.

Care records demonstrated that people's future wishes were considered as part of the care planning process. People and, where appropriate, their relatives were involved in discussions about future care needs, including end-of-life care preferences. This helped to ensure important decisions were documented and understood by those responsible for providing care.

Where a do not attempt cardiopulmonary resuscitation (DNACPR) decision was in place, records showed this had been made following appropriate clinical assessment and discussion with the person and/or those legally involved in decisions about their care. DNACPR decisions were individualised, regularly reviewed, clearly documented, and made in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and national guidance.