Corner Oaks

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this service since they registered. This key question has been rated requires improvement.

This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s consent to care and treatment.

This service scored 58 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Staff worked closely with external health and social care professionals to respond in a timely way to any changes in needs or individual presentation. We received positive feedback from external healthcare professionals to support our findings. Staff consistently demonstrated effective methods of aiding people’s communication and kept their wellbeing under ongoing review. People’s relatives confirmed they were part of a 6-weekly review programme in place, of their loved one’s care and support needs and felt they were kept well informed of any changes in need by the deputy manager. However, we did identify the need for the service to ensure condition specific care plans and risk assessments were in place to reflect people’s overall needs. We received updates from the service confirming they had acted on our advice and completed additional care plans and risk assessments where gaps were identified.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment incorporating use of evidence-based tools and best practice approaches.

We identified use of weight monitoring tools which have not been effectively tested to ensure correct results for people with a learning disability and autistic people. We identified a lack of adherence by the provider to nationally recognised best practice approaches, particularly in relation to the decision to use closed circuit television within the service.

Staff and leaders worked well across teams and services to support people. There were effective information sharing systems in place between shifts to ensure staff were aware of any changes in need or risk.

We observed and received feedback to confirm staff worked well as a cohesive and supportive team to ensure optimal care outcomes were achieved for each person living at the service. We observed a shift handover meeting, where key information was discussed and recorded to ensure any actions were passed between each shift. This ensured people’s 24-hour care and support needs were well met.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported to lead active lives, and to eat healthy and well-balanced meals. People had choice around what they wished to eat and drink, and regular shopping trips were in place to support people to choose snacks. Staff ate with people to support social engagement and role modelling during meals. We observed people to go out regularly for walks to get fresh air and exercise, as well as enjoying activities like going swimming.

The provider did not always monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

We identified shortfalls in relation to the processes in place to monitor and review people’s care and support needs. We identified gaps in the recording of people’s night time care needs where requiring regular repositioning to prevent the development of pressure sores, and monitoring in relation to seizure activity. This did not ensure care records accurately reflected the completion of such checks to maintain people’s safety and welfare overnight. We identified where staff were completing behavioural monitoring charts, and incident forms, these lacked sufficient levels of detail and were not being analysed by the service for themes and trends.

The provider did not tell people about their rights around consent or respect these when delivering care and treatment.

We were concerned by the quality and lack of regular review of people’s mental capacity assessments, and abilities to consent to areas of their care such as the imposed use of closed circuit television (CCTV) within the communal areas of the care environment. We identified use of CCTV without sufficient justification or exploration of less restrictive alternatives. The provider had relied on written consent from people’s relatives who did not all hold legal powers to make such decisions.