Oaklands 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 did not look at all quality statements for Caring at this assessment. The service was not always Caring. People’s individual needs and preferences were not well documented, and this was reflected in their care, treatment, and support. People’s aims and ambitions were not recorded to empower independence, choice, and control. People’s history and life story had not been recorded. 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 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Kindness, compassion and dignity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

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 had limited choice of opportunities within the service to maintain their independence as time with staff was restricted to providing personal care tasks. The provider did not provide staff to take people out into the community for social or leisure activities, therefore, only people who can access the community independently or with their families go out. Information was not available to show how people wished to spend their time and how their care was to be provided at the service. Some people were able to occupy themselves for example, with word games, using their phone and watching their own TV’s in their rooms. However, there were several people who were sitting in the lounge area, sleeping throughout the morning on both days we were at the service, with little to do and only contact with staff when needing personal care or given a drink. There was no process in place for providing activities, or engagement with people in the absence of the activities coordinator. On the second day of the inspection, a new activities coordinator started work at the service though made no attempt to engage people who were sleeping and sitting in their chairs in the other end of the lounge. 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 and families were not involved in discussing care needs, associated risks, and preferences to care and treatment. A person told us “I have not had any reviews or seen my care plan or signed anything. I really like a bath, not had a shower or bath for weeks due to the works in the bathrooms. I have to have bed washes. No choice about this.”

Staff told us they try to spend time with people, but this can be limited at busy times. A staff member told us, “The activity lady is on holiday. So not much going on till she gets back. As to activities, people usually watch TV and sometimes I play scrabble with [person’s name] and that is good.”

Staff did not always recognise how they could enhance the environment for people sitting in the lounge/dining room area. For example, the BBC news channel was on all day, repeating the same news. No staff member had considered asking people for their views or choice of another channel. As some staff were new, their knowledge of people was limited. However, they were respectful when speaking with them and delivering care and support. Staff used people’s names when speaking with them. When requested they got what people wanted, such as a pen to write things down and when someone wanted the toilet, people were assisted quickly.

The provider failed to have a system in place to capture people’s views on their care including meals and drinks, activities on offer and what people might like to achieve in the future. The provider did not show they valued or included people’s views about their wishes, day to day goals and involvement in the life of the service. There was not an ethos of involving and promoting people’s independence in areas such as freedom to move around the service, use of the garden, ways of communicating, managing their own personal care and participating in social and leisure activities. People’s ways of communicating either verbally or non-verbally were not included in their care plans. This meant staff would not be able to understand their needs and respond to them appropriately. We did not see any equipment available such as symbols, photo cards, or memory prompts to aid communication with people with dementia. This meant people’s choices and preferences were not always met.

Staff did not always respond to people's physical, emotional or mental health needs. Staff did not assist one person who could not hold their cup properly. The person spilt their drink on their clothes, which happened more than once. Staff attended to the person’s physical needs and assisted them to change their clothes and returned them to their chair. There were no other exchanges with the person.

Staff had found it very difficult to support one person who was new to the service and who was very unsettled and fearful. The provider failed to ensure the persons care needs had been planned therefore staff did not have sufficient information to know how to effectively meet the person's needs and minimise the disruption to other people using the service. A staff member told us, “We were all concerned for [person’s name] and we really can’t manage them well.”

There was no systems in place which prompted staff to listen and respond appropriately to people who were unable to vocalise their needs and wishes. A professional told us, “The staff are quite disengaged and disinterested; however, they are open to requests and I have never had an issue asking them to do things.” Staff did not appear to have experience or knowledge of supporting people with dementia. People were left sitting around the lounge for long periods of time, without conversation or stimulation, other than a drink or to be taken to the toilet.

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.