We carried out a review of the data available to us about The Oaks on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about The Oaks, you can give feedback on this service.
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.