Oakworth Manor 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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 46 (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 make sure people’s care and treatment was effective because they did not check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People’s care plans were not always person centred and person specific. The care people received from staff was good, as staff knew people well. However, documentation about people’s care needs, preferences and desired outcomes were not robust and reflective of the support the person needed. We found one person’s care plan referred to the person by a different name. Some care plans contained out of date information and contained conflicting information. For example, one person’s mobility care plan detailed extensively how the person was independently mobile when using a walking frame. However, a single line at the bottom stated the person now needed two staff and a wheelchair when moving around the service. We found several examples of this inconsistent approach. This meant that staff who did not know people well may provide incorrect care and support which puts people at risk of harm.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

People were not always included in the creation and review of their care plans. While staff consulted people and had a good understanding of people’s needs and wishes, this was not supported by care plans and risk assessments. One relative told us, “I know my [relative] has a care plan, but I haven’t seen it.” Another relative told us, “There was probably a care plan. I’m not sure. I’ve not seen it.” Care plans were difficult to understand and there was no evidence to show whether the person had been involved in creating it or not. We found there was a differing approach to writing care plans where some were written in the first-person perspective, even when the person was unable to speak due to medical needs. The lack of clear communication methods and records about whether the person had been consulted on key issues increased the risk of the person not being supported to maintain control of their life and decisions.

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.

The staff team worked well together. There was a positive working relationship with the staff team and how staff engaged and worked with visiting staff teams, such as GPs, district nurses and social workers.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not always maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not always support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were not always afforded full choice and control over their meals and drinks. While the food prepared was enjoyed by people, the lack of display and advertisement of menus before mealtimes restricted staff and people’s awareness of what was available. In some instances, this restricted the available choices people were given. While improvements were needed around communication at mealtimes, kitchen staff worked hard to ensure people had nutritious and balanced meals based on seasonally available food. One member of staff told us, “I know people’s dietary needs and preferences. I make sure food is based around seasonal choices.” People had access to their GP and other health services to ensure their health and wellbeing was optimised.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and

consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Reviews and monitoring were not meaningful. Care plans were reviewed on a regular basis. However, information was not consistently updated, accurate and reflective of the person’s care needs. Reviews did not robustly monitor whether care plans were working effectively in guiding staff to provide high quality care.

The provider did not tell people about their rights around consent or respect these when delivering care and treatment.

People did not always give informed consent. While we found there were consent forms in place and mental capacity assessments for some people, the quality and decision making were inconsistent. We found one person’s relative had signed a consent form on their behalf. However, an assessment of the person’s mental capacity had not been completed. This meant it was not known if the person was able to consent themselves. Furthermore, it was also unknown if the relative signing the form had legal authority to do so. Not all areas of consent had been considered, including the use of CCTV. While there was a sign at the front door informing visitors CCTV was in operation, people living at the service were not consulted on its use or given the option to opt out. It had not been considered whether the use of CCTV would be a restriction for people who may need a mental capacity assessment and best interest decision.