Oak House

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. This is the first assessment for this service. This key question has been rated Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 81 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Learning from incidents was embedded into practice and used to continually improve the quality of care.

People were safe living in the home. Relatives said the provider developed new strategies to support people during periods of distress. One relative described how the environment was rearranged to better support their family member, providing additional space and a quiet area to use when they wished.

Staff said incidents were managed safely and consistently. One staff member told us, “Incidents are always recorded and reviewed, and we learn from them. For example, after a behavioural incident, we held a team debrief which helped us adapt support strategies to better meet the person’s needs.”

Accidents and incidents were monitored, reviewed, and analysed for trends. Learning from these events was shared with staff to support safer care and continuous improvement.

The provider worked effectively with people and health and social care professionals to establish and maintain safe systems of care. Safety was actively managed and monitored through clear pathways and joint working.

Relatives told us they felt people’s needs were met safely within the service. One relative described improvement seen in their family member’s wellbeing since moving into the home and said, “I cannot speak highly enough of this service. It feels like winning the lottery. They are so accommodating.”

Staff consistently described how they supported people safely in line with individual needs. One staff member told us, “We support many people with different needs, so we have regular input from Speech and Language Therapy teams [SALT] regarding dietary and food changes, and from the Intensive Support Learning Disability Team [IST] regarding communication and behavioural support.”

People’s needs were monitored through regular reviews and ongoing involvement from relevant professionals. This ensured care remained appropriate, safe, and responsive as needs changed.

The provider worked with people and partner agencies to understand what being safe meant to each person and how best to achieve this. Staff focused on improving people’s quality of life while protecting their right to live safely, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm, and neglect. Concerns were shared promptly and through appropriate routes.

Relatives told us people received safe care and treatment. They said staff responded to concerns quickly and professionally. Easy-read materials were available to support people to understand safeguarding and recognise abuse. Easy‑read information refers to accessible text presented in a simplified format using clear language and supportive imagery.

Staff received safeguarding training and demonstrated a clear understanding of their responsibilities. Staff were able to explain how they would raise concerns. One staff member told us, “We have all had safeguarding training. If there was a concern, I would escalate it to the registered manager. If actions were not taken, I would contact the local safeguarding team and CQC. Depending on the concern, I may contact the police.”

Safeguarding concerns were referred appropriately to the local authority safeguarding team and investigated in line with local procedures.

The provider consistently worked in partnership with people to understand and manage risks through a holistic and individualised approach. Staff delivered care, which was safe, highly personalised, and fully aligned with each person’s aspirations. This enabled people to live meaningful lives and engage in activities important to them.

People were actively supported to make informed decisions and take positive risks in pursuit of their goals. A strong emphasis was placed on empowerment and promoting independence rather than imposing unnecessary restrictions. One relative told us, “I have no concerns. The provider is absolutely brilliant. The staff are always trying new things and working incredibly hard to ensure [person] has opportunities to try new experiences.”

Staff worked creatively and collaboratively alongside individuals to explore new opportunities safely. This included the use of discussion, role‑play, and careful preparation to build understanding, confidence, and emotional resilience. One staff member told us, “We support people to make their own choices, including unwise decisions, while managing risks in a safe and supportive way.”

When new activities were introduced, staff ensured people were fully involved in understanding potential risks and how these could be managed. Decisions were made using a person‑centred approach which respected individual autonomy. This enabled people to increase independence while remaining safe and well supported. One staff member described how they supported a person to use public transport for the first time, enabling access to community services safely. Another staff member shared how a person successfully gained employment following tailored interview preparation, role‑play, and liaison with the employer prior to appointment.

Risk assessments were comprehensive and centred around individual needs. Care plans reflected people’s strengths, preferences, and ambitions rather than focusing solely on risk avoidance. This demonstrated an organisational culture where positive risk‑taking was encouraged and embedded into everyday practice, leading to enhanced independence, confidence, and quality of life.

The provider demonstrated excellent oversight of environmental safety and proactively identified, managed, and reduced risks within the home. People were actively involved in health and safety responsibilities, promoting shared ownership and awareness of safety within the home.

The environment was thoughtfully adapted to meet a wide range of people’s individual needs. Sensory areas were available within the home to support people with sensory processing needs. The service was carefully designed to meet the needs of people with a learning disability and autistic people, offering a balance of small, quiet spaces and larger communal areas. This enabled people to choose whether they wished to spend time alone or engage with others, supporting emotional wellbeing and autonomy.

Bedrooms were highly personalised and reflected people’s preferences, interests, and personalities. This contributed to a strong sense of belonging and identity, reinforcing the feeling of home.

People were meaningfully involved in maintaining a safe environment. One person was supported to take on a health and safety role alongside staff. Their name and role were clearly displayed using visual supports, providing responsibility, purpose, and a strong sense of agency. This inclusive practice demonstrated a commitment to empowerment and participation at all levels.

Relatives spoke positively about the design and layout of the home. One relative said, “The home is lovely, it’s very homely. It feels exactly how it should be, it’s their home. A happy place to live.”

A robust programme of internal and external health and safety checks was in place. These checks monitored the safety of the premises, utilities, and equipment and ensured potential risks were identified and addressed promptly. This approach supported a safe, enabling environment where people could live comfortably, confidently, and with dignity.

The provider ensured there were sufficient qualified, skilled, and experienced staff to meet people’s needs safely. Staff received appropriate support, supervision, and opportunities for development. Teams worked well together and delivered care which reflected individual needs and preferences.

People received consistent care from a compassionate and professional staff team. We observed staff supporting people appropriately and responding to concerns in a timely and safe way. Relatives spoke positively about the staff team and their approach. One relative told us, “Staff are helpful and honest. I can’t rate them any higher, they are wonderful.” Another relative said, “Staff go over and above.”

Staff consistently told us staffing levels were sufficient to support people safely. One staff member said, “There is enough staff on duty. The management team always make sure people receive the right level of support.”

Staffing levels were reviewed regularly and adjusted in response to people’s changing needs. Training was prioritised and staff completed a comprehensive programme, including e‑learning and face‑to‑face training in key areas. This supported staff to maintain the skills, knowledge, and confidence required to deliver safe and effective care.

Staff were recruited safely. Recruitment records showed all required pre‑employment checks were completed, supporting assurance only suitable staff were employed within the service.

The provider assessed and managed the risks associated with infection effectively. Systems were in place to identify, reduce, and control the spread of infection. Concerns were shared promptly with relevant external agencies when required.

People were encouraged to take ownership and responsibility for maintaining a clean and hygienic environment. We observed people and staff cleaning together during the inspection. One person told us they enjoyed cleaning and described hoovering as their favourite task. This approach supported inclusion, independence, and shared responsibility for cleanliness.

The provider had effective arrangements to prevent and control infection. Staff had access to a comprehensive infection prevention and control policy through the provider’s electronic systems. All staff had completed infection control training. Infection control risk assessments were in place and reviewed on a regular basis.

Monitoring systems supported safe practice. Any actions identified were clearly documented and completed, supporting ongoing improvement and assurance of safe practice.

The provider ensured medicines and treatments were managed safely and reflected people’s needs, capacities, and preferences. People were involved in planning their care, including when changes to medicines were required.

Relatives told us medicines were reviewed regularly and they were kept informed when changes occurred. This supported transparency and reassurance for families.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the principles of STOMP [Stopping Over‑Medication of People with a Learning Disability, Autism or Both]. One staff member told us, “Medicines are administered safely following strict protocols, and I understand the principles of STOMP to reduce over‑medication. Medicines are handled correctly and the home is always clean.” Another staff member described how a reduction in medicines for one person had led to improved wellbeing.

Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed. Where people were prescribed ‘as required’ (PRN) medicines, clear protocols were in place to guide staff practice. This supported consistent administration and helped ensure medicines were used appropriately.