Oakwood Bungalows

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

The provider did not always follow best interest processes which did not protect people’s rights. People’s needs were assessed, so that the care and treatment provided met their individual needs.

This service scored 71 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Peoples care needs were assessed. Relatives commented positively about the care and support provided by staff and had been involved in care planning. An external professional stated, “Staff interact positively with the clients and show good knowledge of their needs.”

Staff involved people and their representatives in assessment of needs. Staff assessed people’s needs, including communication needs and reviewed them regularly. People’s care plans were comprehensive and up to date. They considered people’s health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Relatives confirmed staff knew people and their needs well and sought consent. A relative said, “[Person’s name) is able to express themselves and independently says what they like or what they think.”

Staff completed Mental Capacity Act (MCA) training and had a good understanding of the importance of consent. They understood how to support people to have choice and control over their lives. However there was no guidance to support staff as MCA and best interest decision assessments were not always in place.

The provider did not work in line with the MCA, we found MCA and best interest decision assessments were not always in place. At the time of the assessment 8 people lacked capacity but only 2 people had MCA assessments in place. Whilst leaders were already aware of this issue prior to our assessment and had started to address this we were concerned that these were not in place. Following on from the assessment site visit leaders provided evidence that all 8 people now had the assessments in place. We reviewed three of these and found that they were a good standard.



Appropriate legal authorisations were in place relating to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Any conditions related to DoLS authorisations were being met. Systems were in place to make sure these were all up to date.