Oaktree Homecare Services Limited

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 assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (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 always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Some people spoke well of their regular staff who supported them. People had formed good working relationships of respect with these members of staff, which people told us had been an improvement from their previous experiences with the service. However, there were times either the registered manager and provider and staff did not provide a person centred care experience. When some people had injuries and accidents these were not reviewed in an open and holistic way to clarify issues, make improvements for people, and promote people’s safety. A practice had been established when some people had certain types of accidents, staff’s initial responses were not person centred. When people asked to not have a particular member of staff again the provider did not investigate these requests and ask questions. When a person made allegations of theft the member of staff did not inform the office. Improvements needed to be made to promote a consist person centred care experience for all.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People were confident staff would raise a health matter with their GP if they were unable to. Staff had directed people who could do so, to contact their GP’s when they were unwell or had an issue which concerned them. However, there were missed opportunities for some people, when this did not happen. For example, when a person was at risk of choking and another who had a series of falls.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The registered manager told us people had care plans and risk assessments in their homes. People were aware of contacting the office if they needed to ask questions.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Management did not always involve people in decisions about aspects of their care.

The registered manager and provider had received some formal complaints which they had responded to. This is an improvement from the findings at the last inspection in 2022. However, the provider had not informed the complainant what they could do if they were not happy with how the complaint had been handled or with the outcome of the complaint.

People and their relatives were reluctant to raise a complaint or issue about their care, in case they lost their regular staff. A culture was present in the management team to not ask questions and investigate matters thoroughly. This reluctance to make a complaint and raise an issue was something the provider had not identified as part of their auditing of the quality of the care they provided.

The registered manager and provider did ask people about their views of their care when staff spot checks took place. But they did not record the evidence effectively to demonstrate if this had been a thorough piece of work.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

There were missed opportunities when the registered manager and provider did not make contact with professionals and other organisations, to discuss potential concerns about people’s needs and circumstances. The registered manager later told us they had spoken with professionals about some people, who we had identified as potentially needing further professional input.

Staff and the registered manager did contact people’s GP’s when this was needed.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

There were missed opportunities to understand some people’s vulnerabilities and needs. Therefore, the provider and staff in these instances were not advocating for some people who could not independently seek assistance from health and social care services or other organisations, and who may not understand their rights in the situation they were experiencing.

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.

The registered manager and provider did not assess people’s end of life needs and wishes. The assessment forms they used did ask this question, but management and staff did not explore and review what support people wanted and how they wanted to spend their final days.