The Oaks

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty, in which concerns about safety are investigated and reported thoroughly, and lessons are learned to continually identify and embed good practices.

Staff reported concerns without fear and reflected on incidents to identify lessons learned for future practice. For example, during occasions when behaviours challenged. Incident reviews focused on understanding triggers, environmental factors, communication barriers, and behaviours as a form of communication. Learning was shared during supervision, handovers, and team meetings, ensuring improvements were embedded. The provider adjusted their safeguarding procedures and mental capacity assessment processes as a result of input from the local authority.

The provider worked with people and their partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety is managed, monitored and assured. They ensured continuity of care, including when people move between different services.

Transition records for accessing healthcare services considered communication, sensory preferences, known anxieties, and strategies that worked for people. Information was shared appropriately with partner organisations, so people did not have to repeatedly explain their needs.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. The provider concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider made sure they shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

Staff were trained to recognise and respond to safeguarding concerns, including emotional and behavioural indicators. Safeguarding referrals were made promptly, followed up appropriately, and reviewed to ensure ongoing safety. Relatives reported confidence in the service and 1 member of staff said, “We will always report any concerns, and I know they will be dealt with well”.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risk assessments were individualised, reviewed regularly, and focused on enabling people to engage in meaningful activities safely. Staff supported positive risk-taking, recognising the importance of independence and autonomy. For instance, people were supported to learn about their local community and the risks associated with the environment.

We observed people at risk of choking were supported to eat safely with their food texture prepared appropriately. People who could become distressed were supported to deescalate their anxiety and reactive strategies were only used when absolutely necessary.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The environment was designed and maintained to support safe care and reduce distress. Predictable layouts, quiet areas, personalised bedrooms, and sensory adjustments helped people regulate emotions. Equipment and facilities were maintained to support safe care delivery. Environmental risk assessments were regularly reviewed, demonstrating the service’s proactive approach to safety.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development.

They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Recruitment was robust and values-based, including security checks, references, and scenario-based interviews focusing on learning disability and autism awareness, communication, and person-centred care. Staff received appropriate training including in areas of learning disability and mental health.

Induction was structured, covering learning disability and autism, communication strategies, positive behaviour support, safeguarding, the Mental Capacity Act, and the principles of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture. Staff shadowed experienced colleagues before working independently. Sufficient staff were deployed to meet people’s needs safely.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

Staff understood hygiene standards and adapted practice to minimise distress while reducing infection risks. Audits demonstrated compliance, and any concerns were shared promptly with relevant agencies.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

People were involved in planning their care, including during any changes, and were supported to understand their medicines through accessible information. Records were accurate, audits were completed regularly, and medicines were reviewed with healthcare professionals. Families expressed confidence in how medicines were handled, and records showed effective communication with GPs regarding ‘as‑and‑when‑required’ medicines. The service also demonstrated strong adherence to a national programme to stop the inappropriate prescribing of psychotropic medicine. This resulted in psychotropic medicines only being used when necessary, supported by regular reviews, clear clinical reasoning, and meaningful involvement of individuals and families.