Archived: Oaklands Care Home

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

We did not look at all quality statements for Responsive at this assessment. The service was not always responsive. This rating uses some scores from the previous inspection. People’s care, treatment and support did not always promote equality, and protect their rights. People did not always feel empowered. During our assessment of this key question, we found concerns, which resulted in a breach of the Regulation person-centred care. You can find more details of our concerns in the evidence category findings below.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s care plans did not fully reflect their physical, mental, emotional, and social needs, including those related to protected characteristics under the Equality Act. People were not always placed at the centre of their care. People told us they were not always included in discussions about their care and support arrangements. People with capacity had not signed any agreement to their plan of care as the previous manager had signed on their behalf.

Care plans were not up to date with relevant information written in a person-centred way. For example, most of the staff were aware of people’s physical needs, but were unable to locate information about them, their personality, family circumstances, and their wishes. The staff had handheld devices which showed people’s plan of care and where they could view and record information about people’s daily life. Staff could not locate when asked information about depriving people of their liberty or arrangements for people to smoke safety. A staff member told us, “I am getting to know people well, but the care plans didn't have the detail about people, so I knew about them properly.”

The provider did not have systems in place to work in partnership with people or their relatives to include their preferences in their care. The provider did not have a plan in place to review people’s care and support to ensure all care plans were up to date. People did not always get care which was person centred. People were seen sleeping for long periods of time without intervention from staff. People had very little physical or mental exercise to promote their wellbeing although we saw a staff member walking with a person in the garden but were unsure if this was a regular occurrence. Staff did not spend time with people getting to know them and for people to get to know the new staff to promote meaningful relationships. One person who was particular about her clothing spent time walking around the service wearing shoes which were not a pair and the sole coming away from one of them. This did not show the staff were observant and respected her need to look nice.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People told us they were not routinely involved in the day-to-day life of the service and their views were not often sought. No meetings or one to one time with people who used the service had been arranged to seek their views and listen to their ideas. One person told us, “There was a meeting about the changes to the home, but only family members were invited. I felt very excluded as I am family here and paying for my care at the home.” A relative told us, “There is not much stimulation, they get up have breakfast and sit in the chair all day. [Name of person] used to read books. I brought some and they have been untouched in the same place for two weeks.”

The manager told us that people had been involved in choosing the colour of their room. One person told us, “I was asked what colour I wanted my room to be painted in and asked for a nice blue. Instead, I ended up with bright green.” Staff told us that the improvement to the service and the environment would be very beneficial for people as they would have “A nicer place to live.”

The provider did not have a system of involving people in their care. We saw from the care records and from our observations, people were not routinely involved in the day-to-day life of the service. The provider did not have a plan in place to involve people in the improvements to the service. There was no complaints process for people and relatives to follow. One person asked a member of staff to help them with a game. The staff member agreed and started the game but after a few minutes left as was called by another member of staff. They did not return. The person was left to do the game alone and got very disheartened and stopped playing the game.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People’s protected characteristics, lifestyle choices or any cultural needs were not always fully recorded to provide accurate information about them and who they were. One person was of a different nationality, and it detailed in the care plan that they spoke in their first language sometimes. There was no information available for staff to engage with them in simple words to acknowledge and nurture their culture and language. There was some inequality in experience for people. We observed people who were vocal and/or active were given more attention by staff than those who were not. For example, staff members sat with people at the dining table who were able to engage and play games. Whilst people with dementia, were left sleeping and unoccupied. This meant some people’s outcomes and access to opportunities was less favourable than others.

People's care plans were not detailed and did not give a good overview of people's preferences, likes and dislikes and did not take in to account peoples ethnicity. From discussion with the manager, further work was still needed to develop how staff actively listened to people, by improving their communication systems with people and their families. The manager told us, “We do not have a speak out person or formal process, but people can come to me.”

The manager and staff team did not always proactively seek out ways to address barriers to improve people’s experience. One person who at times communicated in their first language were disadvantaged because this was not included as part of the persons communication plan. There was a risk staff would not be able to understand their needs. Care records we reviewed for people showed they were able to access health and community services when needed. For example, dentists, GPs and district nurses. However, we found professional advice had not been sought for people who had needs associated with eating, drinking and choking. We made the provider aware, and action was taken to address this. People were not asked if they had a preference of the gender of the staff to support them with their personal care. This was not recorded in their care plan in order to reflect their preferences.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.