You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 12 May 2017

We inspected Oakdown House on the 13 April 2017 and the inspection was unannounced. Oakdown House provides care and support for people living with profound physical and learning disabilities and complex communication needs. The service is registered to accommodate up to 45 people, and is split across three separate residential units. At the time of our inspection, there were 38 people living at the service.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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 a legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Some people were not able to communicate with us using speech, we therefore spent time observing how staff and people interacted and gained feedback from people's relatives. One relative told us, "It is a lovely place to live and the carers are all kind.” People also told us how they enjoyed living at Oakdown House. One person told us how they enjoyed tapestry and had recently been out for fish and chips and was looking forward to the morning activity of seeing the farmer and making things.

People were encouraged and supported to eat and drink well. Care plans included clear guidance on people’s nutritional needs and the level of support required. People’s weight was monitored, however, it was not consistently clear how it was decided how often people should be weighed. We have made a recommendation for improvement.

The provider was not consistently working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. It was not consistently clear if people had consented to their care plans, taking of photographs and sharing of information. Where restrictive practice was in place, appropriate applications had been under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). For those applications which had not yet been authorised, the provider was unable to demonstrate whether the person had consented to the use of restrictive practice or not. We have made a recommendation for improvement.

The management of risk was safe. Risk assessments were in place and actions were in place to address specific risks such as the risk of choking. We identified concerns in relation to the easy accessibility of latex gloves, but the registered manager took appropriate action to address this concern.

Peoples' health was monitored and they were referred to health services in an appropriate and timely manner. Any recommendations made by health care professionals were acted upon and incorporated into people's care plans. Care plans were person centred and provided clear guidance for staff to follow on how to provide person centred care.

Staff treated people as individuals with dignity and respect. Staff were knowledgeable about people's likes, dislikes, preferences and care needs. They approached people in a calm, friendly manner which people responded to positively. Staff also spoke with people in a dignified way and knew how people liked to receive care.

People told us they liked the staff and were always treated with respect and dignity. We observed good care, a gentle manner and what looked like genuine friendship between people and carers and among people themselves.

People received a personalised service as staff knew people well enough to care for them in a way that met their needs and preferences. People’s preferences and social needs were respected. Activities were many, stimulating and varied and people were supported to maintain links with the community and their relatives.

Staff had received essential training and there were opportunities for additional training specific to the needs of the service, including autism, behaviour that may challenge, and the care of people living with dementia.

There was an open, transparent culture and good communication wit

Inspection areas



Updated 12 May 2017

Oakdown House was safe.

Medicines were managed safely. People received their medicines as prescribed and when needed. The provider was actively recruiting more staff and staff felt staffing levels were sufficient. Staff were subject to rigorous pre-employment checks to ensure they were suitable to work at the service.

Staff had received adult safeguarding training and following any safeguarding concerns and enquiries, improvements had been made to ensure people remained safe.


Requires improvement

Updated 12 May 2017

Oakdown House was not consistently effective.

The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were not always followed.

Staff received training that was appropriate to their role and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of people's complex support and health needs. People had good access to healthcare professionals for routine check-ups, or if they felt unwell. People's health was seen to improve as a result of the care and support they received.



Updated 12 May 2017

Oakdown House was caring.

People were supported by staff that were kind and caring. Positive relationships had been developed between people and staff. Staff appeared to know people well.

Visiting was not restricted and people were supported to maintain relationships with people that mattered to them.

Support was focused on people's preferences where it could be established and respect of their dignity.



Updated 12 May 2017

Oakdown House was responsive.

People received support that was person centred and tailored to their individual needs and preferences.

There were individual and group activity plans in place to support people to lead active, purposeful lives and to be involved in the wider community.

There was a complaints procedure in place and any complaints had been dealt with appropriately.



Updated 12 May 2017

Oakdown House was well-led.

Relatives and staff expressed confidence in the management of the service.

They commented that the management was approachable and listened to their views.

Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of the service and the day-to-day running of the service.