The Oaks 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 inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of the legal regulations in relation to governance and person-centred care.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

An effective system was not fully in place to ensure people received person centred care.

We identified shortfalls relating to nutrition and hydration, the environment and supporting people’s social needs which did not always evidence that people received person centred care.

Staff recognised the importance of family and friends on people’s wellbeing. People could see their friends and family when they wished.

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.

An effective system was not fully in place to ensure people experienced joined up, continuous care.

Staff told us that communication and teamwork was not always effective which impacted on joined up, continuous care.

The interim manager explained that staff compliance with reading the electronic handover system was variable, which did not support effective communication between the staff team, and this was being closely monitored.

Since 2016 onwards all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). The standard was introduced to make sure people are given information in a way they can understand. The standard applies to all people with a disability, impairment or sensory loss and in some circumstances to their carers.

Information was provided to people in a format that met their needs.

An effective system was not fully in place to enable people and relatives to share feedback and ideas or raise complaints about their care and support.

The complaints log referenced that one complaint had been received in 2025. We spoke with a relative who told us they had raised concerns about their family member’s care and support. Records were not available to evidence how their concerns were addressed.

The provider’s computerised system did not enable the monitoring and analysis of concerns and informal complaints to identify any trends. Senior management staff told us that this would be addressed.

The environment did not fully meet the needs of people, especially those living with a dementia. The décor lacked stimulation to help engage people, which had a negative impact upon them.

Partners told us that referrals to health care professionals had not always been made in a timely manner to ensure people’s safety and wellbeing.

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.

People were not always supported to ensure they achieved equity in experiences and outcomes.

We identified shortfalls relating to nutrition and hydration and supporting people’s social needs which did not fully evidence that people were always supported to achieve good outcomes.

The management team told us that an activities coordinator had been recruited and was due to start following our site visits.

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.

People were not always 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.

Care plans we reviewed did not always provide detailed information around people’s preferences in relation to this important area, to ensure people’s wishes were known and followed.