Oak House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. Good: This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

Most people had received support for some time. For those who were relatively new to receiving support, an assessment process with ongoing dialogue with families was undertaken to ensure agreed actions on identifying need were sustained. Support plans were in place and reviewed with the full involvement of people, their families and other stakeholders. People were involved in all aspects of their nutrition, such as meal planning and shopping, although some support was required in preparing meals. People were encouraged to pursue healthy diets. Where people had intolerances to certain food, these were included in support plans as well as reminders in people’s own homes. The nutritional and hydration needs of people were closely monitored to ensure positive health. Staff teams worked well together and demonstrated knowledge and a commitment to providing support to adults living with autism/learning disabilities. People were now actively consulted in all aspects of their support with consent always gained. The Mental Capacity Act was now consistently applied.

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.

Most people had been supported by the provider for some time. For those who had only started recently to receive support, systems were in place to review the transition. Communication between managers and relatives was in place to refine aspects of support. Relatives told us when people had been unsettled, the provider had intervened. Comments included, "There is already a marked improvement in the situation, so we are hopeful things will continue to improve”, “I felt management dealt with an incident with the highest integrity and professionalism to keep [Name] safe” and “It is still early days and the manager is communicating to keep [Name] safe.” Support plans provided an accurate account of support required in people's everyday life. Staff were knowledgeable about the needs of each person and were able to access care plans. They were able to describe the needs of people to us in detail which was accurate and was verified by our examination of support plans.

The provider demonstrated through processes they planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice in relation to supporting people living with autism or with a learning disability.

Processes were in place to ensure the accurate recording and sharing of information of people's care needs. Peoples support plans included details of other services and professionals who were involved in a person’s support. Changes to people’s care needs were communicated to staff via the electronic care planning system. Staff confirmed they received regular supervision and had monthly team meetings.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. There was evidence indicating people received appropriate support and access to health services when required. This was mainly centred on ongoing health conditions. Where health conditions were not predictable and put people at risk; suitably qualified and knowledgeable staff were in place to support people appropriately.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care to continuously improve it. They ensured outcomes were positive and consistent, and they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. A strong emphasis was placed on introducing new experiences and scenarios with a view to enhancing quality of life. These were planned and were mindful of any possible reactions to these new opportunities.

The communication needs of people had been accurately assessed and outlined the various ways people used to communicate. These were reviewed regularly. These included strategies on how to successfully provide and receive information from people. People were informed in advance of our visits to meet them. Records to demonstrate the provider was aware of people’s capacity to consent to care were robust. People’s capacity to make decisions had been recognised in conjunction with the MCA (Mental Capacity Assessments) Code of Practice 2005, and appropriate best interest meetings generated where applicable.