The Oaks

Updated 15 March 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

The inspection took place on 20 and 21 September 2017 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours notice of the inspection as we spent time at the provider’s office to review the management of the homes. In addition we wanted to ensure that people would be available at the home for us to speak with.

The inspection team consisted of two inspectors and specialist advisor. In addition an expert by experience was used to contact families by telephone to gather their views of the care their relatives received. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the home. This included any incidents the provider was required to tell us about by law and concerns that had been raised with us by the public or health professionals who visited the home. We also reviewed information sent to us by the local authority who commission care for some people living at the home. Before the inspection, the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the home, what the home does well and improvements they plan to make.

During the inspection of the office we spoke with three members of the executive team, the nominated individual, the operational manager and the locality manager. We also spoke with the learning and development team, the positive behavioural support manager and the management support manager. At the home we spoke with one person who lived there, the registered manger, deputy manager, the positive behaviour support staff and a member of care staff. We also spoke by telephone to the families of three people who lived at The Oaks.

We looked at three care plans and other records related to the care people received. In addition, we examined records relating to how the home was run including staffing, training and quality assurance.

Updated 15 March 2018

We carried out our announced inspection visit on 20 and 21 September 2017.

The Oaks is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to six people who may have learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder.

The service had a registered manager. 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.

This was the first inspection since the service was registered.

The provider had effective systems in place to ensure that there were always the correct amount of staff with the appropriate skills and training needed to provide safe care for people. There was a structured induction program to ensure staff developed the skills needed to work for the provider and ongoing training to ensure staffs skills remained up to date. Staff were provided with support from their line manager and external consultants to ensure they were working in line with best practice. Recruitment processes ensured staff were safe to work with people at the home.

Staff had received training in how to keep people safe. Staff worked with the Positive Behavioural Support (PBS) team to help people manage their behaviours and reduce the need to restrain people for their own safety. Incidents were reviewed and changes made in care to support positive behaviour in people.

Risks to people were managed and care was planned to keep people safe. The registered manager had submitted appropriate applications under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to ensure people’s human rights were protected. People’s abilities to make choices were respected and where needed decisions were made in people’s best interests. Where people had the ability to make an informed choice about risk taking staff worked with people to support their choices. Other risks to people were identified and appropriate action taken to keep people safe.

People’s medicines were available to them when needed and stored safely. However, we saw that the provider had not consulted with a pharmacist to ensure that there was no interaction between food and medicine when taken together. People were able to make choices about their food and their diet was individualised to meet their needs. Appropriate advice was taken to ensure that people could eat and drink safely.

Staff were kind, caring and knew how to personalise care to meet people’s individual needs. They respected people’s privacy and dignity and people’s achievements were celebrated. Staff understood people’s communication needs and supported them to make their views known. People’s personal environment had been decorated to reflect them as an individual and the care they needed.

Staff ensured that people’s needs were assessed and care plans reflected their individual needs and were updated when people’s needs changed. People and their relatives had been involved in planning their care. People were supported with meaningful activities which supported their well-being and encouraged them to access the local community.

People living at the home and their relatives were able to raise concerns and the provider took action to improve the care they received. People’s views about the quality of care they received were gathered and used to drive improvements in care. Additionally people were involved in the running of the homes and their views were taken into account when recruiting staff or making changes.

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of care people received and took action when any concerns were identified. Staff felt supported and were encouraged to develop. The provider was working towards a no blame culture and concerns raised were used to continually improve the quality of care people received.