Oaklands 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.

This is the first assessment for this registered service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The introduction of an Admissions Officer role strengthened the process of assessing individuals’ needs prior to admission to Oaklands Care Home, or as soon as reasonably practicable in urgent circumstances.

Effective systems were in place to ensure care plans were regularly reviewed and updated. Care plans reviewed during the assessment were current, person-centred, and accurately reflected individuals identified needs and preferences.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

The provider demonstrated the use of recognised, evidence-based models and frameworks to support the delivery of care and treatment. This included the implementation of the Frailty, Recognition, End of Life, Escalation of Deterioration (FREED) model, which enabled staff to identify early signs of deterioration, respond appropriately, and provide timely, person-centred care. This approach was particularly effective in supporting people with increasing frailty and those approaching the end of life.

The service also demonstrated adherence to the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). Information was provided in accessible formats where required, and staff were supported to communicate effectively with people.

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.

There were clear evidence external health care services including GP’s, optician’s and district nurses were involved with the care and support of people. One person told us “I am seeing an eye specialist next week … I feel my health is taken care of.” We spoke with the GP on their weekly rounds who told us, “Referrals are accurate and mostly necessary … generally information shared is important and accurate.”

We saw evidence professionals were involved in decision making processes regarding people’s best interests. Team meeting minutes and handover notes showed us key information regarding people was being shared with the wider team.

We observed student nurses and occupational therapists on site completing placements as part of their education, demonstrating the provider’s commitment to partnership working, learning, and knowledge sharing.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

We saw examples of people participating in gardening activities, including growing vegetables within the garden. This promoted physical activity, wellbeing, independence and a sense of purpose. The provider demonstrated how they had supported one person to achieve significant weight loss, which had enabled them to pursue a long-standing interest in gardening that they had previously been physically unable to undertake.

A rotating four-week menu was in place, ensuring meals were varied. This was further enhanced through themed and special menus, providing additional variety. People's views and preferences were sought through regular ‘resident’ meetings, where menu options and ideas for future meals were discussed. People were asked each day about their meal choices.

People's individual nutritional and health needs were considered and supported. For example, tailored menu options were available for people living with diabetes. Care records identified specific dietary requirements for people, and the information was shared with staff in the kitchen

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Care records demonstrated people were regularly assessed and monitored to ensure any changes in their health and wellbeing were identified promptly.

Where people were at risk of malnutrition, appropriate monitoring arrangements were in place. This included regular weight checks and completion of Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST) assessments to identify and monitor risks. Records showed these assessments were reviewed consistently and used to identify any changes in people's nutritional status. When concerns were identified, appropriate action was taken to address these.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Care plans clearly recorded where people had the capacity to make decisions regarding their health, care and wellbeing, and documented the decisions people had made for themselves. People told us they were supported to make their own day-to-day choices, including when to get up or go to bed, whether to have a shower, and what they wanted to eat and drink.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service and found where needed people had DoLS authorisations in place.