Oiza Healthcare 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.

This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery

This service scored 71 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People were involved in all aspects of their care planning, and care plans were person‑centred to ensure staff had clear guidance about each person’s preferences and wishes. Daily notes showed that when people declined support or requested additional assistance, staff respected their choices and provided care in line with their wishes. This meant that people’s autonomy was upheld and their individual preferences were central to the support they received.

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.

Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of people’s ongoing care requirements and communicated effectively within the team to ensure support was consistent. Regular reviews, weekly check‑in calls, and daily record‑keeping helped identify any changes in people’s health or wellbeing. This allowed care plans and risk assessments to be updated quickly so that support remained responsive and aligned with best practice.People and their families told us they felt well supported and confident that communication between staff and other professionals was effective. One relative told us, “All the time, they're just so good at making sure my mother has what she needs.”

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

Care plans clearly described communication preferences, including when staff should be patient and to give plenty of time for people to answer. People told us they received clear updates about care, and relatives said the office team were approachable and responsive. One relative told us, “I would say that the risk element is not concerning to us as the carer speaks Punjabi and English, which is so helpful.”

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

There were multiple systems in place for people and staff to share feedback and contribute ideas. People were encouraged to do this through care plan reviews, weekly check‑in calls, quality assurance surveys and the complaints process. Staff were also supported to provide feedback through regular one‑to‑one supervisions, team meetings, and a dedicated email address where they could raise any concerns. This ensured there were accessible and varied opportunities for everyone to have a voice and for the service to learn and improve.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

All the feedback received demonstrated people did not experience any discrimination and inequality from the service and they received support when they needed.One relative told us, “They [staff] always listen to me if I think slight adjustments need to be made.”

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People had support and care tailored to their individual needs as demonstrated throughout this report, this meant people were not at risk of experiencing inequality. One relative told us, “All the time, they're just so good at making sure my mother has what she needs.”

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.

At the time of our assessment, no one using the service was receiving end of life care. However, people were not always provided with, the opportunity to discuss or record their wishes for end of life care. Staff had completed end of life training and were prepared to support people should their needs change. This meant people did not always have the opportunity to express or record their preferences for their future care, which could limit staff’s ability to fully understand and respect their wishes should their needs change.