Oak House

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

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.

The provider had not consistently monitored the service's culture, which over time had led to instances where people may not have been fully supported in taking positive risks. For example, one kitchen cupboard was locked, staff told us this contained people’s snacks and was locked because of potential choking risks. We observed staff helped people to access these. We sought further clarification as to whether this was required considering there were other snacks and food items readily available. The registered manager took immediate action to review this practice and told us this was unnecessary and demonstrated how they had taken action to address this. The provider had a shared vision and strategy based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and empowerment. People were provided with a high standard of care from a motivated staffing team. There was a strong culture of inclusivity of people and staff due to open channels of communication and requests for feedback. People were consistently satisfied with the service they received and were given ample chances to provide feedback about their support.

The provider had exceptionally 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 always did so with integrity, openness and honesty. The registered manager was highly regarded by all people and their relatives. We received consistently positive comments about their leadership and approachability including, “I feel that the service at Oak House is extremely well led by the registered manager and very well supported by all the staff.” And “Communication with the registered manager is excellent they are very accessible.”. Staff feedback was consistently positive their comments included, “I can ask the registered manager anything, they will tell you and if they don't know they would try and find out so we're all on the same page.” And, “The managers are amazing they're all supportive we have regular supervision, we feel supported and we can feedback any improvement ideas.”

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard. Staff had a clear policy to follow to enable them to speak up. Staff received regular supervision and consistently told us they felt confident to speak up about any concerns they had. One staff member told us, “If I had any concerns I would speak up to the registered manager.”

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. There was a diverse range of backgrounds, skills and experience within the workforce. The service had an open, inclusive recruitment procedure. Staff told us how they were supported to share elements of their culture with people this included trying foods from around the world. One staff member told us how the people, registered manager and staff had helped them improve their English skills.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. The registered manager was responsive and outlined plans to regularly review and improve oversight processes with particular regard to monitoring the culture of the service to maximise peoples' opportunities for autonomy and control. The registered manager and provider carried out various audits and checks to identify shortfalls in the service and drive improvements to the care and support people received. There was a continuous action plan in place which enabled progress to be monitored. There was a staffing structure at the home which gave clear lines of responsibility and accountability. Staff acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.
 

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. Leaders and staff had worked with people and their representatives to build a culture that focused on enabling people to enjoy their lives. This included supporting people to continue to have meaningful relationships with friends and family. Relatives told us how staff had supported people to attend family events and visit family homes.

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. The model of care was generally in line with current best practice guidance right support, right care, right culture. For example, the registered manager spoke about ongoing efforts to enhance practices and outlined plans to research ways to provide more personalised medicines support to people. Leaders worked with people, their representatives and staff to build a culture that focused on enabling people to enjoy a full life.