The Oast

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 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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. The registered manager told us that they assessed people prior to being accepted at the service which was reflected on positively by a relative of a person who lived there. The registered manager told us of a person who on moving to the service was referred for a medication review. This resulted in a change of medication which had a positive impact on their physical and mental wellbeing. We were also given examples of proactively reviewing people’s health conditions and adapting how care was provided to them to reduce instance of bruising. The service was supported daily with District Nurses who were able to provide inhouse support for minor concerns.

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.
We saw hydration points throughout the service so people could request or help themselves to drink of snack items and on the day of our visit a themed meal had been planned and advertised. One person said when asked about food said” Oh yes plenty we had pie and mash today”. We saw that people were supported to eat when they wanted or needed and there was a system to ensure that people received appropriate food if on a special diet.
Care plans showed peoples preferences, and we saw a person-centred interaction whereby a person was gently supported with their meal in a respectful way at their pace. People had various health related systems monitored such their weight, hydration and other areas that may indicate health issues to ensure people could receive support when they needed it.
 

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.
Care plans contained hospital passports which meant if people had to be supported elsewhere their key information would go with them. We saw staff worked well together and spoke positively about how they worked together and the support they had received from the registered manager. One person said, “The staff here are absolutely wonderful they all work so hard.”
Staff knew people well and were able to outline their needs when we spoke with them. People told us the staff worked well and felt all their needs were met. The service engaged daily with District Nurses who supported people with clinical care and staff were able to obtain support and advice when it was needed.
 

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 were supported to eat and drink healthily and snacks and hydration were always available. One staff member described how they had made a sandwich for a person at 2am because someone was hungry.

People were involved in decision making and regular meetings were held with people who lived there and family members to understand if the service was working well and supporting them how they wanted to be. The registered manager told us that they provided some alternative therapies such as Reiki which some people enjoyed. Staff were able to explain how they supported people and a person told us “I am generally very well but they always ask how I am and would notice if I wasn’t.”
 

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Care plans showed people’s health conditions, needs and preferences. We saw that health was monitored dependant on need such as monitoring the volume and fluid that was consumed each day. Care plans were reviewed regularly and updated when peoples need changed. Staff were informed of any daily concerns or when people’s needs changed at daily meetings, staff notifications or urgently if that was necessary. When people required referrals were made to external health care providers such as GPs, dieticians and to the District Nurses who attended daily. We saw that for one person, who had full mental capacity, and did not wish their nutritional intake to be monitored this was respected. We saw an example where a staff offered medication to a person, who was concerned it would make them drowsy. The staff patiently and kindly explained that it was for pain and would make them feel better which put that person at ease.
 

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

The service carried out initial Mental Capacity Act (2005) assessments to support lawful best interest decisions at the point of admission. The service was supported by people’s GPs to complete ongoing mental capacity and best interest assessments and non-medical best interests were documented and processed using an electronic system. The service sought support for decision making such as Deprivation of Liberty safeguards (DoLS) where people were at risk of harm and these were recorded in care plans. Staff told us they would always ask for consent and were able to explain what actions they would take if someone did not consent to care, such as to explain what and why they wanted to do, to return later or to ask someone else to support that person.