The Oaks 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 inspection 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 the legal regulations in relation to governance and person-centred care.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Due to the concerns identified during the assessment, we could not be assured people received a high quality, compassionate and caring service.

Whilst relatives told us people were treated with kindness; we found the condition of the environment, including the outside space and cleanliness did not fully demonstrate that the provider fully respected people's privacy, dignity and wellbeing.

Staff spoke positively about people living at the home and described them as “family.”

An effective system was not fully in place to demonstrate that people were treated as individuals.

During our assessment, we identified shortfalls relating to meeting people’s social needs, the standard of accommodation, cleanliness and supporting people who displayed distressed behaviours. These issues did not evidence that people were always treated as individuals.

The provider had formulated an action plan prior to our assessment and updated it during and following our site visits and those visits carried out by the local authority and ICB. We observed that improvements had been made on our last visit to the home in relation to cleanliness, infection control and activities provision.

An effective system was not fully in place to ensure people’s independence, choice, and control were promoted.

The environment did not fully support people’s independence. Handrails and other equipment were not always available to support people to access the toilet. A relative told us, “You would think they would have a guard around the toilet to help people sit on it easily, it can be a struggle.”

Records did not evidence that staff supported people to meet their social needs. Staff had only recorded activities for 8 of the 31 people for the past 28 days. Some of these activities were listed as “Taken to room,” “TV” and “Film.” During our first visit, most people were sat in the lounge with the television on. People were not actively engaged and spent a lot of time asleep. People were more engaged on our final visit to the home. A singer attended and people enjoyed the music and entertainment.

We reviewed how people’s nutritional needs were met. Whilst a menu was in place which included a good range of food, some people required a soft textured diet. A separate menu was not in place to evidence that people who required a modified textured diet were provided with a choice of meals.

The provider had formulated an action plan prior to our assessment and updated it during and following our site visits and those visits carried out by the local authority and ICB, to ensure improvements were made.

Records did not always evidence that staff responded to people’s individual needs.

Where people required additional monitoring and support in areas such as continence care, skin integrity, diabetes and nutrition and hydration to keep them safe, records did not always evidence this support had been provided in line with requirements.

The provider had formulated an action plan prior to our assessment and updated it during and following our site visits and those visits carried out by the local authority and ICB, to ensure improvements were made.

Improvements were required to ensure the wellbeing and enablement of staff was promoted. We received mixed feedback from staff about their wellbeing at work. Some staff felt supported; others felt more support was needed. Prior to the assessment, staff meetings, training, competency assessments, supervision sessions and appraisals had not been carried out as planned.

Management staff were aware of the issues and were working with staff to support them. Staff meetings, competency assessments, supervisions and appraisals were being organised and held.