You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 27 June 2019

About the service: The Oaks is a residential care home and provides personal care and support for up to eight people who have a learning disability, physical disability and or autism. At the time of the inspection there were eight people living at The Oaks.

People’s experience of using this service:

A registered manager was not in post. However, the manager had submitted an application to the Care Quality Commission and this was in progress.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen. The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values and people were encouraged to be independent within their home. Staff understood people's individual communication needs and worked in proactive ways to provide person-centred support.

People were supported to have choice and control over their lives and staff demonstrated an understanding and awareness of mental capacity and best interests’ decisions. However, the records did not fully support this and the manager had plans in place to address this.

The environment although accessible did not always meet the needs of people living at The Oaks. There were delays to the completion of required maintenance and there were outstanding actions that when completed would enhance the environment.

Staff were caring. Everyone we spoke with was very complimentary about the service and said they would recommend the home. There was a strongly embedded culture within the service of treating people with dignity, respect, compassion, warmth and kindness.

Accidents and incidents analysis was not always shared. We have made a recommendation that the provider improve the recording of shared learning of accidents and incidents.

Most of the care plans were up-to-date, person centred and goal orientated with a focus on achieving outcomes. However, care plans and risk assessments relating specifically to manual handling on the electronic system did not contain sufficient detail to enable staff to carry out the support safely.

Activities were available to keep people occupied both on a group and individual basis. Activities were organised in line with people's preferences.

A system was in place to ensure medicines were managed in a safe way for people. Staff were trained and supported to ensure they were competent to administer medicines.

People received support with meals and drinks.

Staff knew how to access relevant healthcare professionals if their input was required. The service worked in partnership with other organisations and healthcare professionals to improve people's outcomes.

Staff were recruited safely and there were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to keep people safe and to meet their care needs. Staff were received appropriate training which was relevant to their role. Staff were supported by the manager and were receiving formal supervision where they could discuss their on-going development needs.

Individual needs were assessed and met through the development of detailed personalised care plans, which considered people's equality and diversity needs and preferences. Care plans were up to date and most detailed the care and support people wanted and needed. Risk assessments were in place and showed what action had been taken to mitigate any risks which had been identified. Appropriate referrals were being made to healthcare professionals when necessary.

There was a complaints procedure available which enabled people to raise any concerns or complaints about the care or support they received. Systems were in place to ensure complaints were encouraged, explored and responded to.

Staff meetings were held regularly and covered relevant topics. However, there was no evidence t

Inspection areas



Updated 27 June 2019

The service was safe

Details are in our Safe findings below.


Requires improvement

Updated 27 June 2019

The service was not always effective

Details are in our Effective findings below.



Updated 27 June 2019

The service was caring

Details are in our Caring findings below.



Updated 27 June 2019

The service was responsive

Details are in our Responsive findings below.



Updated 27 June 2019

The service was well-led

Details are in our Well-Led findings below.