The Oaks 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

Care, support and treatment was not always easily accessible (including physical access) and people did not always have options for accessing care in ways that met their personal circumstances and protected equality characteristics. People and relatives told us their concerns were not always listened to.

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 did not always have equal access to activities or events. At least 10 people in Emerald required support to access communal spaces by staff where activities were held and had to use a rota system to access the equipment they needed as there was not enough mobility chairs. This was not a person-centred approach and put people at risk of boredom and social isolation. We received mixed feedback in relation to activities and events at the service. One person told us, “There is not a lot of things for me to do, I am a different age to most.” Another person said, “I go to the lounge to have dinner there, we have games like bingo, dominoes, quizzes and wordsearch and a rock & roll singer comes in.” A relative whose family member was receiving 1 to 1 care support said, “Staff do not engage or interact properly they just sit there.”

Staff we spoke with were able to give examples of people’s care and support and knew people well. However, they told us they did not always have sufficient time available to support people in a person-centred way. A staff member told us there was 1-1 activities with people in their rooms and volunteers assisted with activities, however they did think more support was needed in this area to ensure people were able to participate in activities in a meaningful way.

We observed different experiences for people in different areas at The Oaks Care Home. Whilst people in one area used communal spaces to socialise and attend activities in the other area in the service most people remained either in bed or in their bedroom. We observed a staff member who had started an arts and crafts session, however when we observed them shortly afterwards, they were cleaning. When we asked why they told us only 1 person wanted to do the arts and crafts so the person went over to the other side. There was no attempt to try something else that people might have wanted to do.

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.

We received mixed feedback about communication within the service. People and relatives told us of issues they had raised with senior staff. A relative told us, “There have been many problems with different managers, I have raised numerous issues, including [family members] possessions going missing, some of the responses have been unprofessional.” However, other people and relatives were positive about the communication they received.” A relative said, “They have gone beyond my expectations – staff seem nice and caring and keep me up to date.”

Leaders at the service could not find or identify that the concerns people were telling us about were captured, investigated and logged appropriately. When we asked for investigation reports for 2 concerns raised to us, we were only provided with 1 of these following the assessment.

Processes in place were not effective to listen to people or ask them for feedback about the service. During the assessment we reviewed complaints recorded at the service and found 2 recorded for 2024. This record did not contain any of the concerns people and relatives told us they had raised. When we asked senior staff about this, they told us they may still be on emails. Recent meetings had been held with people and relatives; however, we were unable to identify how feedback from this meeting had been acted upon. People and relatives at this meeting had raised concerns about call bell times, items going missing, the food and lack of personal hygiene.

People could access support from health professionals if they needed it. A person told us, “I can see the GP when I need them.” People told us the GP visited weekly and they were referred to other health professionals when needed. However, as stated throughout the report we were not assured all appropriate areas of the service were accessible and any barriers to this had been removed.

There were qualified staff working at the service who were knowledgeable about referring people to other health professionals when needed. However, whilst staff were knowledgeable about people’s health conditions we were not assured staff were monitoring risk-reducing strategies effectively, which could delay a referral to other professionals.

Concerns had been raised by visiting professionals at the service and the local authority were currently working with the service to investigate all issues. A visiting professional told us they and other professionals had concerns with the telephone being answered and reported this was a frequent problem. They also added continuity can be a problem as not all the nurses knew people well. A new deputy clinical lead had recently started at the service to provide support to staff and ensure people were receiving appropriate care and support.

Care records recorded visits from other professionals, however, more attention was required by the management team to review care records to ensure people were receiving appropriate support. We identified wounds being treated in the service that had not been known by senior staff overseeing the service.

People’s care, treatment and support did not always promote equality, remove barriers or delays, and protect their rights. People did not all have equal access to communal spaces within the service.

Leaders were not always alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people using their services, whether from wider society, organisational processes and culture, or from individuals. Care records in place to support people with their health conditions were not being checked by senior staff effectively. Accessibility to appropriate areas of the service was not demonstrated. Staff working with people tried their best to accommodate people’s requests to access activities and had consistently raised the lack of equipment with senior staff.

Processes were not in place to make sure people had equity in experiences and outcomes. Senior staff did not have sufficient oversight of day-to-day care or people’s health conditions to promote equality, remove barriers or delays and protect people’s rights.

People were supported to make informed choices about their care and plan their future care while they have the capacity to do so.

Staff clearly knew which people were approaching the end of their life and these were included on a list prepared for the GP so any treatment options could be reviewed regularly.

Processes were in place to capture people’s wishes and preferences at the end of their lives. However, as stated in other areas of this report oversight of records needs improvement to ensure professionals who visit have all the up-to-date information they require.