• Care Home
  • Care home

The Oaks

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

165 Worcester Road, Malvern, Worcestershire, WR14 1ET (01684) 572079

Provided and run by:
Autonomy Life Ltd

Assessment report published 28 May 2025

On this page

Well-led

Good

14 May 2025

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

 

 

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Shared direction and culture

Score: 3

The provider had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities. The home had a clear vision which was outlined in the Statement of Purpose, “The aim of The Oaks encourage is to develop daily living skills and provide opportunities to develop life skills and new opportunities whilst living in a group setting.” Core values and beliefs will ensure and enable the individuals the Oaks support to, “Be protected from harm, abuse and exploitation, contribute to their community and have social involvement, grow and develop as individuals, not be discriminated or disadvantaged against because of ethnic origin, religious belief, age, sexual orientation, disability, social class, cultural background or gender and access services appropriate to their identified needs based on agreed care plans.”

 

Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders

Score: 3

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty. Staff told us the management team were supportive and approachable. Some staff felt they would benefit from the management team working alongside them on the floor more in order to help identify where any areas of improvements could be made and where additional support may be required. However, all staff spoken with said if they needed any of the management team to help and assist on the floor they only had to ask and they would. On the whole relatives were positive about how the home was run. One relative told us, “It’s well led, good set up.” Another relative said, “Very professional.”

 

Freedom to speak up

Score: 3

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff told us they knew how to raise concerns and felt they would be listened to. The management team were passionate and motivated about the work they do. They worked with people, relatives, staff and other professionals to instil a culture of care which valued and promoted people’s individuality, protected their rights and enabled them to live the lives they wished. The registered manager was open about lessons learnt and actions taken to prevent recurrence. They understood duty of candour and their responsibilities.

 

Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion

Score: 3

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. The Oaks had a diverse staff team that was multi-ethnic and multicultural. They employed a person with a learning disability to support the homes maintenance team. This has helped the person increase their self-esteem and enabled them to be part of the wider system and community. Staff confirmed they were treated fairly and were provided with opportunities for development and career progression. For example, one staff member we spoke with told us how they had completed train the trainer training and was now delivering training to staff. There were processes in place to ensure staff were treated fairly and equally and their rights were upheld. For example, there was an equal opportunities policy in place.

 

Governance, management and sustainability

Score: 3

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate. The registered manager completed a range of audits to monitor the quality the service. These included monthly health and safety, infection prevention and control, medication, finance audits and spot checks. In addition, the provider completed monthly quality audits of the service. The audits ensured full oversight of the service and identified any areas of improvement.

 

Partnerships and communities

Score: 3

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. The registered manager told us they worked in partnership with health and social care professionals such as the GP, nurse, community learning disability team, psychiatrist and occupational therapists to improve people’s health and life outcomes. In addition, where appropriate, people also had advocates which helped to give them a voice.

 

Learning, improvement and innovation

Score: 3

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research. There were systems in place to monitor quality and inform learning and improvements. The nominated individual spent regular days at the service and conducted audits. The management team were open and transparent and engaged positively during the inspection, welcomed feedback, and were committed to continuously learn and improve care.