Oak House

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture. At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

The governance and management of the service was effective. Relatives stated the main aims of the service were to meet their loved one’s needs, and management were committed to this. Quality audits were effective in driving improvement. The provider had a shared value to promote the independence of people living with autism/learning disabilities and to ensure they had a positive quality of life. Leaders were capable, experienced and fully committed to the shared values of the organisation. The provider worked in partnership effectively with other agencies and stakeholders.

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.

All members of the service had a shared vision to effectively support people living with autism or a learning disability. Staff demonstrated a commitment to providing good support to people yet with a strong emphasis on including their preferences and choices. A supportive culture had been developed as a result, working towards positive outcomes for people. The provider’s organisational values were in alignment with CQC’s ‘right support, right care, right culture’ principles.

Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty. Staff considered managers to be supportive and responsive to any issues they had. They had confidence managers would respond to any of their suggestions. Relatives were happy with the management of the service and stated where issues had arisen; these had involved an ongoing communication with them to ensure good outcomes for people

Staff felt supported and able to raise any concerns about care practice with no fear of reprisals. A whistleblowing policy was in place as well as information for them regarding external agencies they could speak with if they were concerned. Staff outlined examples of how care concerns had been reported and acted upon.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them. A staff member said, “We can also speak to managers and other staff, and we feel our views are listened to.”

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement. Partner organisations did not have any concerns about the service.

Staff described the systems in place for quality assurance and improvement. These included regular staff supervision and staff meetings. The registered Manager shared evidence of regular audits in place to ensure people received good care. These included the views of everyone and was in partnership with all.