You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 10 August 2017

Oak House provides accommodation and personal care for up to four people who may have a learning disability, autistic spectrum disorder, physical disability and/or sensory impairment. At the time of our inspection there were three people living in the home. The service also offers respite accommodation which can be used by one additional person. Respite care offers short residential breaks to people.

The inspection took place on 22 May 2017 and was unannounced. This was the first inspection of this provider who was registered with us in September 2016.

There was a registered manager in post and present during the 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.

People felt safe and they were protected from the risk of abuse by staff who had been trained and knew how to escalate concerns. Risks to people’s safety had been identified and staff knew how to support people safely. New staff were recruited safely and there was enough staff to support people during both day and night. People had their medicines as they had been prescribed.

Staff were able to meet people’s individual needs because they had received training and support they needed. Staff knew how to uphold people’s rights and obtain their consent to the care offered. People were fully involved in food shopping and the planning of their meals. People were actively supported to stay healthy and saw health professionals to support their needs.

People were treated with kindness and compassion. We saw that care was inclusive and people were enabled and encouraged to make decisions about how their care was planned and delivered. People described positive relations with staff.

People were encouraged and were supported to engage in social and recreational activities of their choice and supported to maintain employment. People knew how to raise any concerns they might have and were confident these would be listened to.

People told us that they were very happy with the quality of the service and that their views were listened to. We saw that the registered manager and staff created an inclusive culture within which people were respected and valued. People described both the registered manager and provider as friendly and approachable and they were complimentary about how the home was run. Systems were in place to monitor the standard and quality of the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 10 August 2017

The service was safe.

People were protected from abuse and risks to their safety had been identified and acted upon.

Staff were recruited safely and there were enough staff to meet people’s needs.

People received their medicines as prescribed.

Effective

Good

Updated 10 August 2017

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff who had training and support to develop their skills.

Staff worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. They sought people’s consent and did not unlawfully restrict people.

People had control over their meals and drinks and their health needs had been identified and planned for.

Caring

Good

Updated 10 August 2017

The service was caring.

People told us that the staff were caring and treated them with respect and promoted their independence.

People had been supported to maintain contact with their friends and family and there were no restrictions on visiting times.

Responsive

Good

Updated 10 August 2017

The service was responsive.

People had full involvement in determining how their care was delivered.

People’s social, recreational and employment needs had been promoted.

People were confident their complaints would be listened to.

Well-led

Good

Updated 10 August 2017

The service was well-led.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and to build on developments already made.

People benefitted from an open and inclusive culture within which their views were valued and respected.

People were complimentary about how the home was run.