The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Oak Field

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

21 Oakfield Road, West Croydon, Surrey, CR0 2UD

Provided and run by:
Care Expertise Group Limited

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of assessment: 4 September 2025 to 11 September 2025

Oak field is a residential care home providing accommodation and personal care for adults with learning disabilities, autistic people, and mental health support needs. At the time of our inspection, 7 people were living at the service. Each person had their own en-suite bedroom, and there was communal living areas designed to promote independence, choice, and social interaction.

We carried out a comprehensive inspection of the service under the single assessment framework (SAF). We inspected this service because it had an aged rating. The inspection was carried out by 1 inspector. At this inspection, we reviewed all 33 quality statements across the 5 key questions: Is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive, and well-led? The provider’s previous rating was Good.

We assessed the service against the ‘Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence, and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

Staffing levels were arranged to ensure safe and effective support. During the day, there were 5 staff on shift, and at night, one waking night staff member and one sleep-in staff member. This staffing structure ensured the service could respond promptly to people’s needs, provide one-to-one support when required, and always maintain safe care practices.

The model of care and setting maximised people’s choice, control, and independence. The home was small-scale and homely, in line with best practice guidance for learning disability services. Staff supported people to access community-based activities, attend religious services, and maintain contact with loved ones. Where appropriate, people were also supported by advocates to help them express their wishes and make informed choices about their care.

The service supported people with complex needs and promoted personalised care through detailed assessments and collaborative working with professionals. Leaders maintained a structured governance framework, overseeing audits, quality monitoring, and incident analysis to ensure standards were met and continuously improved. Policies and training requirements were regularly reviewed to maintain regulatory compliance and promote good outcomes for people.

 

16 October 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We found the following examples of good practice.

• The service limited visitors to reduce the risk of infection transmission.

• Staff checked the temperature of all visitors on arrival and asked whether they had any symptoms of covid19 or had travelled to any high-risk areas recently.

• Visitors usually did not enter the care home but were accommodated in a comfortable building in the garden area.

• All staff received training in infection control and the registered manager regularly discussed best practice with staff to keep their knowledge up to date. Training for staff included how to take on and off Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). Staff followed suitable infection control guidelines including the way they used PPE.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

22 February 2018

During a routine inspection

Oak Field is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement.

Oak Field does not provide nursing care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The service supports up to seven people with learning disabilities. There were six people using the service at the time of our inspection.

When we last visited the home on 22 September 2015 the service was meeting the regulations we looked at and was rated Good overall. At this inspection we found the service remained Good overall.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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.

Systems were in place to protect people from abuse and harm. Staff understood the signs people may be being abused and how to respond to this as they received training in safeguarding adults.

Risks relating to people’s care were reduced as the provider identified, assessed and managed risks appropriately. People were supported in relation to behaviours which challenged the service. People’s medicines were managed safely.

The provider checked staff were suitable to work with people as part of their recruitment systems. There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to support people safely and to spend time with people in a meaningful way.

The premises were maintained safely although the provider told us they would review the safety of window restrictors across the service. The premises met people’s support needs and some aids and adaptations were in place to support people in relation to their disabilities. These included a chair lift, hand rails and a sensory room.

The service was clean and suitable food hygiene processes were in place. Infection control procedures were largely suitable although the provider told us they would make some improvements to the way mops were stored and auditing of infection control.

Staff received suitable induction, supervision and annual appraisal. A training programme was in place to help staff understand people’s needs and their role and responsibilities.

People received care in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and staff understood their responsibilities in relation to this.

People were supported to receive coordinated care when moving into the service and into hospital. The provider assessed people’s needs and reviewed their needs as part of checking people’s needs continued to be met.

People received choice of food and people received food in relation to their ethnic and cultural needs. Meal times were flexible and based on people’s preferences. People received support to maintain their health.

Staff were kind and caring and knew how people liked to receive their care. People had choice and control in relation to their care. Staff were respectful towards people and maintained their dignity and privacy. People were encouraged to be as independent as they wanted to be.

People’s care plans were person-centred and detailed. Care plans reflected people’s physical, mental, emotional and social needs, their personal history, individual preferences, interests and aspirations.

People were provided with activities they were interested in and so spent their time in meaningful ways. People were supported to maintain relationships with people who were important to them.

The complaints process continued to be suitable and the provider investigated and responded to complaints.

The registered manager was well supported by an acting manager and leadership was visible and capable across the service. Staff understood their role and responsibilities. A staff award system was in place to recognise staff.

A quality assurance programme was in place to assess, monitor and improve the service. People, relatives and staff were communicated with openly and their feedback was sought and acted on.

22 September 2015

During a routine inspection

We visited the service on the 22 September 2015 and was unannounced.

Oak Field is a 7 bed residential care home that offers housing, personal support and respite care for adults with severe learning disabilities and behaviours that challenge. At the time of our inspection six people were using the service on a permanent basis and one person was regularly receiving respite care. At our last inspection in November 2013 the service was meeting the regulations inspected.

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 legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The service knew how to keep people safe. Staff helped make sure people were safe at Oak Field and in the community by looking at the risks they may face and by taking steps to reduce those risks.

People were cared for by staff who received appropriate training and support to do their job well. Staff felt supported by managers. There were enough qualified and skilled staff at the service. Staffing was managed flexibly to suit people's needs so that people received their care and support when they needed it. Staff had access to the information, support and training they needed to do their jobs well.

We observed staff had an excellent understanding of people’s needs and were able to use various forms of interaction to communicate with them. Staff supported and encouraged people to engage with a wide variety of activities and entertainments available within the service at in the community. Care records focused on people as individuals and gave clear information for people and staff using a variety of photographs, easy to read and pictorial information. Staff supported people in a way which was kind, caring, and respectful.

Staff helped to keep people healthy and well, they supported people to attend appointments with GP’s and other healthcare professionals when they needed to. Medicines were stored safely, and people received their medicines as prescribed. People were supported to have a balanced diet and were able to make food and drink choices.

A number of audits and quality assurance systems helped the manager and provider to understand the quality of the care and support people received. Accidents and incidents were reported and examined and the manager and staff used this information to improve the service.

7 November 2013

During a routine inspection

There were five people living at Oak Field on a permanent basis on the day we visited and one further person used the home as a respite service at weekends. We used a number of different methods to understand the experience of people using the service as they had complex needs and were not always able to communicate effectively with us.

The service had effective systems for assessing the needs and risks associated with each person living at Oak Field and had comprehensive and personalised care plans. Their health and welfare was monitored daily.

.

The provider had included measures in the care plans to avoid and manage risk as far as reasonably possible. There were appropriate security measures at the premises to ensure the safety of residents and adequate arrangements for emergencies.

We spoke to two relatives of people living at Oak Field. One told us "We're more than happy with it - I can't praise it enough."

There were well maintained and safe systems for the management and administration of medicines and good systems for ordering, storage and disposal of medicines.

The home was clean and hygienic in all areas. Appropriate staff training was supplied in infection control and there were measures to protect staff and residents from the risks of infection such as protective clothing and safe waste disposal.

There were sufficient staff to meet the needs of people using the service.

Records were well ordered, consistent and well maintained.

26 February 2013

During a routine inspection

On the day of our inspection there were five people living at Oak Field on a permanent basis and one person regularly using the homes respite service. We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service because most of the people who lived at this care home had complex needs, which meant they were not always able to verbally communicate with us in a meaningful way.

We were able to observe that people's experience of the service was a positive one. During our inspection we saw staff always treated people with respect and dignity and people were supported to make informed decisions about how they lived their lives.

We also gathered evidence of people's experiences of the service by speaking to the services manager and other staff that worked in the home and reviewing various records the provider is required to keep.

We saw that polices and procedures had been put in place to ensure the safety and well being of people using the service and we saw evidence of a robust quality assurance system regularly monitored by the provider.