Oaklodge 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

People were not always supported by staff in a timely manner when they were in discomfort or distress. People did not always have choice because there was not always staff available to support them. Whilst people’s care plans had been developed on an individual basis, we were not assured the systems and processes in place enabled and supported individualised care. Staff knew about and understood people’s cultural needs and supported people to follow their chosen religion.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We received positive and complimentary feedback from people’s relatives in relation to the kindness and compassion shown by the care staff. People’s relatives told us staff respected people’s privacy and dignity when supporting them with personal care. However, our observations during the site visits saw not all people were treated with kindness, compassion, and dignity. During our visit, a person told us that staff walked past them and didn't seem to realise they were a person. Staff interactions with people were seen to be improved during the second site visit. We were not assured the cleanliness of the environment enabled people to feel dignified. A relative told us how they had asked the provider if they could replace their loved one’s carpet with laminate flooring due to the strong smell of urine, which was facilitated by the family. This meant the provider, registered manager, and staff had not ensured people’s dignity was respected and always promoted.

Staff told us they referred to people’s care plans to understand their individual needs and preferences. Staff who had worked at the service for a long time told us they knew people’s preferences, wishes, personal histories and backgrounds by getting to know them over the period of time they have worked at the service for. The registered manager conducted observations and a daily walk around of the service which included speaking to people. However, the registered manager had not identified the concerns found during the assessment.

Professionals who were involved with the service and its staff, such as the GP practice, podiatrist and local authority falls team, reported no concerns to us in their experience when visiting the service and felt people were supported with kindness, compassion and dignity.

Although we saw some positive and caring interactions between some staff and people, we also saw that people were not always supported by staff in a timely manner when they were in discomfort or distress. For example, we saw two people crying and distressed during our visits and staff were either not available or did not provide reassurance for prolonged periods of time.

People’s care plans were person centred, however, staff did not always have time to implement the planned care in the way people preferred. Staff knew about and understood people’s cultural needs and supported people to follow their chosen religion.

Staff were motivated to provide person centred care and understood the importance of meeting individual needs. We were given an example of how a person was supported to manage their own care and support needs despite some risk being involved. The person was able to take an informed risk and their freedom to do so was respected.

Staff were not always available to provide support on an individual basis, which meant people were seen to be alone and unoccupied for most of the time we was on site.

Processes to ensure people received care and support that meets their individual needs and preferences required further development to ensure people’s care is planned and delivered based on individuals strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and backgrounds. Whilst people’s care plans had been developed on an individual basis, we were not assured the systems and processes in place enabled and supported individualised care.

People had limited access to activities and the local community to promote and support their independence, health and well being. People were supported to maintain relationships with their family who were able to visit the service. Most people were able to make choices about how they spent their day. However, we were not assured this was the experience for all people living at the service. For example, five people were seen to be out of bed and dressed before 7:00am. Staff told us people chose to do this, however, one person told us they had not wanted to get up that early.

Staff described to us how they supported people to make choices. A staff member said, “Some people are early risers and that’s their preference. We ask the person if they want a shower, a bath or a wash and we respect their wishes.”

People did not always have choice because there was not always staff available to support them. For example, one person was repeatedly asking to go back to their bedroom but there was not enough staff to support them and ensue they were safe when in their own room. People who were able to mobilise independently did so and accessed different areas of the service depending on their preferences.

Processes to ensure people’s independence, choice and control was promoted and met at all times needed further development and embedding. The registered manager was in the process of recruiting a staff member to support people with activities and access to the community. Care and support plans recorded people’s preferences and important information about their life history and cultural needs.

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.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.