Oak House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question Good. At this assessment, the rating has remained Good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. However, some improvements were needed in relation to staff communication.

We observed kind and caring interactions whilst staff were supporting people. Staff spoke about people in a dignified and respectful way. Staff always knocked before entering people's rooms and ensured doors were closed when delivering personal care. We did receive some less positive feedback about staff communicating with each other in their native language and not English whilst in communal areas of the home. This was communicated to the registered manager.

People and their relatives told us they liked the care staff, and we saw positive interactions between people and staff to support this. One person we spoke with told us, “The staff are very caring. Some will put their arm around me. They are always smiling.” A relative commented, “The staff are always smiling and are very friendly to us. They are extremely friendly and helpful.”

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Our observations showed staff knew people well and as individuals. On the first day of the assessment, we identified staff seemed very task orientated. On our second day of visiting this was very different and staff demonstrated they could foresee people’s care and support needs and intervened early.

People were supported to maintain relationships with friends and family. Visitors were made to feel welcome into the service, we saw relatives came to visit their relatives on both days of our assessment visit.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. However, some comments were less than positive, and we were told of inconsistent staff practice.

People’s care plans gave guidance to staff on how much people could do for themselves and when they needed staff support. For example, during personal care there was guidance on how much support people needed to wash or use the toilet. This meant people were encouraged to maintain as much independence as possible.

We did receive a small amount of feedback that people were not always supported how they preferred. Whilst this feedback was minimal, it did not evidence a consistent person-centred approach by all staff. One person said, “I am independent. I can wash and dress myself. They can tend to treat us like children and automatically try and do things for us. It’s overly kind.” A relative said, “The staff are very business-like and can be abrupt. They will wake people to feed them and take them to the toilet.”

Our observations showed independence with mobility was supported. People who were independently mobile were allowed to move freely around the service. People who required support were assisted by staff. At lunchtime, we saw minimal support was provided to those people who were eating independently.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

Staff were visible throughout our assessment visit. On the first day we were at the service, staff were very task focussed. On the second day we observed staff responding very quickly to people’s needs and reassuring them when requests were made.

Our observations were very positive on the second day, with a calm and relaxed atmosphere. We observed care staff sitting around and talking with people with all interactions appearing natural. Staff were attentive and our observation showed staff asked people’s permission before moving them, for example when using equipment.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

The provider and registered manager spoke positively of the staff team at the service. Staff felt well supported by the provider and the registered manager. Staff said there had been improvements since the current registered manager assumed their position. They told us the leadership at the service promoted a positive team environment. One newer staff member said, “I do feel supported in my role. The management team has been very approachable and there is always someone available to help. I have also been given induction to settle in so that I get familiar with the routine and the residents.”