You are here

Archived: Limber Oak Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 11 March 2016

Limber Oak is a care home which is registered to provide care (without nursing) for up to seven people with learning disabilities. The home is a detached split level building within a rural area of Crookham, Newbury. People have their own bedrooms and use of communal areas that includes an enclosed private garden. The people living in the home needed care from staff at all times and have a range of care needs.

The home has not had a registered manager since the 7 December 2015. The provider had commenced the process to recruit a manager who would apply to CQC to become the registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At our comprehensive inspection of Limber Oak on the 26 and 27 January 2015, we had found the provider had not protected people against the risks associated with safeguarding people from abuse. Additionally we had recommended that the service finds out more about best practice in supporting staff development and seek guidance of best practice in quality assurance and monitoring procedures. Our rating of the service at that time was required improvement.

We revisited the service on 20 July 2015, and inspected the service against one of the five questions we ask about services: is the service safe. This was to check that the provider had followed their plan and to confirm that they had met the legal requirements to keep people safe.

At this inspection 8 February 2016, we inspected the service against the five questions we ask about services: is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led.

People who use the service had a range of communication abilities that ranged from limited verbal communication and use of pictures and symbols to indicate their needs and wishes. These were understood by staff and enabled staff to support those individual’s to make choices and express their views. Staff treated people with kindness and respect and had regular contact with people’s families to make sure they were fully informed about the care and support their relative received.

People’s safety was promoted within the home. The recruitment and selection process helped to ensure people were supported by staff of good character. There was a sufficient number of qualified and trained staff to meet people’s needs safely. Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns they had about the care and welfare of people to protect them from abuse. People’s medicine was managed safely.

People were provided with effective care from a staff team who had received support through supervision, staff meetings and training. Their care plans detailed how they wanted their needs to be met. Risk assessments identified risks associated with personal and specific behavioural and or health related issues. They helped to promote people’s independence whilst minimising any risks.

The service had taken the necessary action to ensure they were working in a way which recognised and maintained people’s rights. They understood the relevance of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and consent issues which related to the people and their care.

Improvements had been made to the environment to promote people’s privacy. This had included refurbishment of two bathrooms, and additional office space to store people’s records and promote confidential meetings about people’s care.

People were encouraged to live a fulfilled life with activities of their choosing. Further staff hours had been authorised by the provider. This was to minimise the risk of social isolation for the people who lived in the home. People’s families told us that they were very happy with the care their relatives receive

Inspection areas



Updated 11 March 2016

The service was safe.

People�s families felt that people who use the service were safe living there.

Staff knew how to protect people from abuse and the provider had robust emergency plans in place which staff understood and could put into practice.

There were sufficient staff with relevant skills and experience to keep people safe.

People�s medicines were managed safely.



Updated 11 March 2016

The service was effective.

People�s individual needs and preferences were met by staff who had received the training they needed to support people.

Staff met regularly with their line manager for support to identify their learning and development needs and to discuss any concerns.

People had their freedom and rights respected. Staff acted within the law and protected people when they could not make a decision independently.

People were supported to eat a healthy diet. They were helped to see G.Ps and other health professionals to make sure they kept as healthy as possible.



Updated 11 March 2016

The service was caring.

Staff treated people with respect and dignity at all times and promoted their independence as much as possible.

People responded to staff in a positive manner and there was a relaxed and comfortable atmosphere in the home.

Improvements to the environment had taken place that promoted people�s privacy and confidentiality of information held about them.



Updated 11 March 2016

The service was responsive.

Staff knew people well and responded quickly to their individual needs.

People�s assessed needs were recorded in their care plans and provided information for staff to support people in the way they wished.

Additional staff hours had been created to promote activities within the home and community for people. This was to meet their particular needs and minimise social isolation.

There was a system to manage complaints and people were given regular opportunities to raise concerns.



Updated 11 March 2016

The service was well-led

The provider was in the process of recruiting a manager to apply to become the registered manager of Limber Oak. In the interim the provider had taken measures to ensure the service was supported by a manager at all times.

Quality monitoring of the services provided had been further developed. The manager and provider had carried out formal audits to identify where improvements may be needed and had acted on these.