Archived: Oakhill House 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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

People were assessed by a senior nurse before being admitted to the service. This was detailed and covered all known risks to people and their needs to ensure the service had the right staff and facilities to meet their care and treatment needs.

People and their relatives were integral to the assessment process and were consulted throughout, to gain individual information. One relative told us, “I looked at a number of services before this one. It was recommended and the staff were so helpful and approachable nothing was too much trouble to get things right for him.”

The reviewing and ongoing assessment of people was evident. Staff spoke about people’s changing needs and how getting to know people was vital to tailor their appropriate support. A staff member said, “You have to spend time with people and their relatives, listen to them, and get to know them as individuals.”

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.

Staff got to know and understand people and their individual needs. Care staff communicated any changing needs to the registered nurses who had a clinical oversight of people’s health and care support needs. Any changes and updates were discussed at staff handovers and daily ‘flash’ meetings used to share information and discuss best practice. This resulted in positive outcomes for people as staff worked together to support the best care for people. For example, any slight change in the condition of people’s skin was detected and responded to, ensuring appropriate action was taken to support healthy skin.

Care plans were reviewed and updated as needed. People and their relatives felt included and consulted. “They always let me know of any changes to their health and are always asking for my view on things.”

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.

Staff had good communication with other professionals who attended the service to support people with their individual health and care needs. Visiting professionals were positive about their working relationship with staff and reflected on their availability and skills. One said, “I find them to be open and honest with competent skills and if unsure theyhave the clinical lead to refer to who, in my opinion is knowledgeable/competent and understands her residents needs exceptionally well.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives.

People told us they had access to healthcare, whenever they needed it. One person told us “The doctor is here once a week, but if we need someone more often the home calls them.” Another said, “I have had a lot of care, and I am getting better.”

Staff were mindful of the importance of promoting health and well-being and they ensured people were included in any health screening and monitoring available. For example, for those people who were diabetic all recommended checks were arranged. A visiting professional said, “The nurses are excellent at recognising any untoward health issues and highlighting it immediately to the GP surgery swiftly.”

People’s social and emotional needs were responded to. A much-appreciated activity and entertainment programme was available and adapted to individual choice. One relative reflected, “The activity person has been great. They have involved her, and she now mixes. She loves the singing and quizzes, she enjoys it.”

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

There was a system to routinely monitor people’s vital signs and weights. Any concerns were raised and dealt with as a priority by the registered nurses. In addition to daily checks and reviews by staff each person had an allocated day in each month for a complete audit and update. This provided the opportunity to re-evaluate the individual support provided from all aspects, including the views from the person and their relatives. The ‘flash’ meeting, attended by the management team, clinical leads and representatives from all departments facilitated this. All staff were able to discuss best outcomes for people and in this way continuously improve the service provided.

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

People told us they were listened to and were given choices around their care and support. One person said, “Staff are very respectful and always ask before doing anything.”

Staff recognised the importance of people giving consent and supported people to make choices and respected these. One staff member said, “I always ask for consent before I do anything.” We heard staff giving people choices and responding to their responses. A staff member was seen to ask a person if they wanted a female carer to attend to their request.

When people had been assessed as lacking capacity to make certain decisions Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) applications had been completed appropriately when needed, subsequent authorisations were recorded. The register of DoLS applications and authorisations was available. The Mental Capacity Act, and its principles were being followed.