The Oaks Care Home

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

We identified a breach in relation to dignity and privacy. There was not enough equipment to support people to access communal areas so staff took them to activities in their beds. People were not supported to have appropriate care such as baths, showers and hair washes in line with their preferences. People did tell us most staff were kind and supportive.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us they were sometimes taken to communal areas in their beds as there were not enough mobility chairs to support them. This impacted on their dignity. A relative told us, “The home does not have enough mobility chairs and [family member] came to the lounge in their bed for a birthday party. It was a bit weird [family member] in their bed there but they wanted to attend, this has happened twice.” People did not always have access to baths or showers in line with their preferences. As identified in the staffing section this also impacted on their dignity. People did not always believe staff would respond to their needs quickly and efficiently, especially if they were in pain, discomfort, or distress. One person told us their catheter bag was full to bursting after they had waited a long time for support. However, other people did tell us staff supported their privacy. A person told us, “Staff always knock, ask if you want anything.”

The provider and management team had failed to identify the concerns with people’s care and the promotion of their dignity which we found concerning accessing communal areas in unsuitable equipment. Whilst staff consistently told us they were having to support people to communal areas in their beds, no action had been taken by senior staff. Management and staff did not recognise undignified practices of transferring people to communal areas in their beds.

During the assessment the service was also being visited by representatives from the local authority. They had identified concerns in relation to the care and treatment people had received.

We observed some caring interactions from staff, whilst others were undertaking their roles and communication related only to the task they were carrying out.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

People were not always supported to have choice and control over their own care and to make decisions about their care, treatment and wellbeing. People were not always able to choose where they ate their meals or where they spent their day. On the ground floor there were two separate areas. In the area, where people had general nursing needs people were supported to access communal space to eat or sit and the atmosphere was positive. However, in the area where people were living with dementia the communal space was only accessed by 3 people during our assessment. This meant people spent a large amount of time in either their bedrooms or their beds. People were not always positive about the communication they received. One person told us, “I have complained that they [staff] ignore me or treat me as a child, my children did complain higher up and they said that they had heard back.”

Staff told us people did not always get choices regarding where they wanted to spend their day or with their personal care choices. A staff member told us, “Other staff tell me we do not have time to do people’s teeth. People are not getting enough baths or showers. It is mainly a bed wash they receive.”

During the assessment we observed staff trying their best to provide positive care to people and we did see examples where staff were offering people choices. However, we also observed people spending a long time either in bed or their bedrooms, particularly on Emerald. It was positive to note when we came across a person whose first language was not English who required support, a staff member who spoke the same language was available to support the person.

The provider did not have an effective process in place to ensure people could be supported with their independence choice and control.

We did not look at Responding to people’s immediate needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

People did not always receive safe, effective and person-centred care as the provider did not always promote the wellbeing needs of staff. Staff told us they did not always have regular opportunities to provide feedback, raise concerns and suggest ways to improve the service or staff experiences. A staff member told us, “I do not feel supported. I have been asked to sign a supervision when someone else had done something wrong to ensure no one else did it.” However, we did receive feedback from staff where they were positive about their support. A staff member said, “I feel supported in the sense I can ask and speak up. We do all communicate well together. Although I have not had any (formal) supervisions since I have been here.”

We were not assured staff were being effectively supported. We were provided with an overview of people’s supervision session and this varied with some staff receiving 4 supervisions in 2024 to other staff only receiving 1. In specific files we looked at appraisals were overdue. A new deputy clinical lead had recently started at the service and told us they were specifically concentrating on supporting staff.