Oakham Grange

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 changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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.

Relatives told us staff delivered person-centred support that met their loved ones’ needs. One relative said, “[Staff] take time out to sit and talk to [people]. It’s not unusual to arrive and there is a carer sat with [relative] talking about life.”

We observed staff consulting people about everyday decisions and respecting expressed choices. People received support in ways aligned with personal preferences.

Most visiting professionals spoke positively about responsiveness. One professional said, “We have a positive and collaborative working relationship with Oakham Grange. The team are dedicated to providing safe, person-centred care and are receptive to feedback, which supports ongoing improvement.”

Care plans reflected individual needs, these were regularly reviewed to ensure continued relevance and effectiveness.

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 experienced coordinated care, and staff worked well with external professionals to ensure care remained responsive to people’s changing needs. People’s care records were person‑centred, and staff understood how to meet individual needs. Staff were proactive when people’s health changed, making timely referrals and ensuring professionals had accurate information. External partners told us the team communicated well and followed professional advice to maintain continuity. One visiting professional said, “The team are approachable and maintain regular contact, ensuring any queries or issues are addressed promptly.”

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

People received information in formats they could understand, in line with the Accessible Information Standards. These standards state that providers of publicly funded adult social care are legally obliged to ensure people with disabilities or sensory loss receive information they can understand, with the right communication support.

The provider had communication care plans that reflected people’s individual needs, including those with disabilities or sensory loss. The provider ensured information was available in accessible formats and provided appropriate communication support. For example, the complaints policy was available in an easy‑read format, the library contained large print books, and menus were presented using pictorial images to support understanding.

The registered manager also shared with us plans to further enhance communication aids within the service, including the introduction of dementia‑friendly clocks and additional pictorial boards.

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.

People were supported to express their views and mostly felt listened to by the service. The provider had an accessible complaints policy and encouraged feedback through resident and relative meetings, satisfaction surveys and QR‑code (Quick Response) feedback tools. Most people and their relatives told us they felt staff listened to them and responded appropriately when they raised concerns or suggestions. One person commented, “They have a meeting with us once in a while and ask us what we think about topics.”

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

Reasonable adjustments had been made to ensure people were enabled to have access to all parts of the service. We saw people had access to adapted bathrooms, with a choice of bathing facilities to meet individual needs. There was lift access for people to get to different areas in the home. We saw staff had access to a variety of equipment which they used to support the needs of people living at the home. This was clearly documented in people’s care plans and staff were aware of how to support people safely. A range of information and guidance was available to support people, and the staff team and was displayed in the communal areas, the staff room and the office.

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.

Improvements had been made since our last inspection to the delivery of care and support, with care increasingly tailored to people’s individual needs. The management team had actively supported changes to strengthen person-centred care, and work was ongoing to ensure these improvements were sustained, embedded in practice and used to drive continuous improvement within the service.

People were 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. However, this was not always a subject people, or their relatives were willing to discuss, and this was approached sensitively by the management team and the care team.

People were supported to think about their future care in a way that suited them. Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation (DNACPR) plans were included in people’s care records to reflect their preferences at such a time when they would be unable to express their wishes. One relative told us, “I had a meeting with [registered manager] about what palliative care is and they asked the GP to arrange to come and talk to me about end-of-life care options. [Registered manager] rang me the next day to ask if I had any questions.”