Oak Farm

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

People were consulted about their care, although some people, and their relatives, had not had been offered recent reviews of people’s needs and goals. People received person centred care but the service needed to be more proactive in increasing people’s independence and ensuring they exercised control over all aspects of their care. Feedback was very mixed.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People had the opportunity to discuss their care and changing needs with staff. Some felt they were not always fully supported with choices relating to increasing their independence. However, we noted plans were in place for this for most people and feedback from most healthcare professionals about this was very positive. One relative told us how their family member had refused a particular element of their care provision which had been put in place by their hospital consultant. This had been discussed, documented and fully respected. They had then changed their mind and this had been promptly taken on board and recorded.

Staff were clear on their responsibility to discuss people's needs and any changes with them directly. Staff knew people's health and care needs well. Handovers were in place and staff told us they were confident people's changing needs and preferences would be discussed with them and recorded.

Care records were person centred and contained details about people's changing needs. Handovers were in place and a structured recording process ensured staff were aware of any recent changes to people's care regime.

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.

Feedback was mixed. People told us they felt able to raise concerns, comment and make complaints should they need to. However, some people were not confident action would always be taken. The provider gave people surveys to feed back on their care and treatment but, where people had scored the service slightly low the registered manager had not acknowledged this and it was not clear what action, if any, had been taken.

Staff told us they made sure people had the opportunity to raise concerns if they needed to. We observed one person who was unhappy about an aspect of their care, discussing this with staff. The matter was discussed, recorded and a plan made.

There were structured resident meetings and discussion of people’s care also took place on a more individual basis. Processes to gather feedback and suggestions about the care provided, were in place but could have been more robust. We saw 10 surveys which the provider told us were the most recent, although these were undated. This represents a third of the people who used the service. Feedback was almost all positive but, where it was less than wholly positive, there was no acknowledgement or further action documented whereas the positive aspects were acknowledged. This tool did not appear to be an effective way to ensure feedback was fully gathered and acted on for all people who used the service.

Most people said their care and treatment was provided in an inclusive way and were happy with all aspects. Two people shared more negative feedback and said they did not feel the service truly listened to them or understood and acted on their specific needs.

Staff and leaders confirmed they had received equality and diversity training. Care records contained information about people's diverse needs.

Feedback from health and social care partners was very mixed. Some felt the service provided very well for people's diverse needs and was a model service for ensuring people's specific needs were met in an inclusive way. Others felt the service treated those with a spinal injury and those with acquired brain injury in different ways and did not ensure everyone received the same access to the specialist care they required at all times.

There were processes in place to capture people's diverse needs in care plans. People's specific needs and preferences were well recorded and known by staff. However, where some people and healthcare partners had expressed some shortfalls in the way the service met some people's specific needs, processes were not always clear.

Most people said their care and treatment was provided in an inclusive way and were happy with all aspects. People had been asked about their care and treatment but some wanted more opportunities to direct their future. People told us they did not experience discrimination.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of how discrimination affects people and aimed to ensure people received equitable treatment. They told us they had received training to support them in this.

Relevant policies were in place to protect people from discrimination and staff had received training in equality, diversity and human rights. People’s care records showed accessibility needs were assessed and any barriers were identified to improve people’s experience. For example, any adaptive aids people required to access the service, or information.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.