Oban House Residential 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

We assessed six quality statements within the effective key question. We found improvements had been made since the previous inspection in July 2023. This meant the effectiveness of people's care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes. Systems were in place to ensure consent to care and treatment, assessment of people’s needs and support to live healthier lives. Staff teams and external services worked well together. People, family members and external health and social care professionals told us they felt the service was effective.

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.

Staff followed best practice guidance, and this led to good outcomes for people. Staff used recognised tools to assess the risk of malnutrition, weight loss and skin breakdown. Staff also supported people with oral care following best practice.

People and those close to them had been involved in developing their care plans to meet their individual needs and preferences. Care plans showed detailed assessments of people’s needs and clear guidance for staff to follow to manage them.

Assessments were completed before people moved to the home. This included where appropriate, consultation with other professionals involved in the person's care and family members. Care plans were then developed to include people's identified needs and the choices they had made about the care and support they wished to receive.

People and, where appropriate, family members were fully involved in decisions relating to their care. Family were kept informed about any changes in care or treatment. We observed all the staff knew each person well. People were called by name and staff were responsive to people’s needs. We observed staff communicating clearly with people, a member of staff noticed someone didn’t have something they always had at lunch and got this for them.

The registered manager told us they had worked hard on the care plans since the last inspections to ensure they were fit for purpose ensuring staff were able to provide quality care.

Care plans and related records viewed showed consideration and reflection of current legislation and best practice guidance. For example, specific care plans for catheter and oral care were in place and followed by staff.

The admissions and hospital admissions policy included information from relevant sources. For example, within care plans there were up to date health summaries which had been received from people’s GPs.

Staff felt they had sufficient time to meet people’s needs and told us they always had sufficient appropriate information about any changes to people’s needs. We saw staff working together to meet people’s needs.

People received effective support. Their health and care needs were understood and information was communicated effectively between services to ensure their needs continued to be met. People were supported to attend hospital with sufficient information to enable them to receive seamless safe and effective care.

We asked partners for feedback regarding the support people received. We received no negative feedback regarding the the experience people had when moving between services.

Staff supported people to attend hospital appointments. One person was supported to attend with an appointment with the dementia team. This meant people were supported to attend appointments by staff who knew them, but also that information required by other professionals during the appointment would be available. Any decisions or further treatment required following an appointment would also be known by the service.

Care plans included information about people's past medical history and how current medical needs should be supported.

People were encouraged to have meals in the dining room. This meant they also undertook some exercise making their way to the dining room. Food was healthy and plentiful with different choices of drinks available. We observed activities taking place after lunch too.

People and family members told us they were all happy with the care provided. Since the previous inspection there had been an increase in staffing levels. One person managed to start walking again after being admitted from hospital. This meant people were now receiving a higher level of individual attention.

The provider and staff knew how to seek advice and support when required. External professionals were positive about people’s care and staff told us there were systems in place that meant feedback and suggestions were followed.

People had up to date, individual, person-centred care plans which reflected latest best practice guidance and these were updated to reflect any changes to people’s needs. Daily records showed people were receiving the care they required as identified in their care plans. The provider's quality monitoring processes included monitoring care records which helped ensure these remained current and up to date for each person.

Where people had capacity to make decisions, we saw they consented with the proposed care and support. For example, if people had capacity but made what was considered to be an unwise decision, steps would been taken to ensure the person understood the risks of this decision. Staff were heard providing people with choices in relation to where they spent their time, what they wanted to do and if they wanted to be involved in activities.

Care staff were following people's documented wishes. People's right to decline care was understood. Staff said that, should people decline care or medicines, they would return a short while later to offer assistance again. Should people continue to decline they would encourage but respect the person's decisions and inform the management team.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). MCA assessments had been completed and showed where people did not have capacity to make decisions, such as for personal care and receiving medicines, decision specific assessments were made. These included consultation with those close to the person and decisions had been made in the best interests of the person. Where necessary, applications had been made to the relevant authority and nobody was being unlawfully deprived of their liberty. There were systems in place to ensure that renewal applications were submitted in a timely way prior to existing DoLS becoming out of date.