We carried out a review of the data available to us about Oak House 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 Oak House, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
¿ Staff, relatives and healthcare professionals were required to follow strict processes to enter the home to prevent the introduction of infection.
¿ A nominated relative could book a slot to visit their family member in line with the new Government visiting directive.
¿ The use of single occupancy bedrooms, social distancing and where possible good ventilation reduced infection risk.
¿ Systems in place ensured people would be admitted safely to the home to prevent the risk of infection entering into the home.
¿ Stocks of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) were ample for staff, visitors and people to use.
¿ COVID-19 tests were carried out three times a week for staff and monthly for people to identify if there were any COVID-19 cases.
¿ Robust cleaning regimes ensured the risk of infection transmission was reduced.
¿ The staff had received a range of infection prevention training that included, COVID-19 specific training and Test and Trace COVID-19 testing training.
¿ The provider's Infection Prevention and Control (IPC) policy had been reviewed regularly to capture any new government guidance.
The service applied the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensured that people who used the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives. People using the service received planned and co-ordinated person- centred support that is appropriate and is inclusive for them.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The provider had quality assurance systems in place and action had been taken to make improvements. However, several issues identified during the inspection had not been picked up by managerial observations or by in-house audits.
People felt safe and were supported by staff who knew how to protect them from avoidable harm. Overall, risks to people's health and well-being had been assessed and monitored to ensure they were kept safe. People received their medication as prescribed. Staff were recruited safely and there were enough staff to meet people's needs. The home was visibly clean and complied with infection control practices.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice. The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service achieve the best possible outcomes including, independence and inclusion. People support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
Staff received induction training when they started working at the home. Training had been received by staff and refreshed in line with the provider's expected timeframes. People were supported by staff who knew them well. People made their own decisions about their care and were supported by staff who understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People's nutritional needs had been assessed and guidance was provided for staff about how to encourage people to maintain a healthy diet. Referrals were made to healthcare professionals where required to ensure people's health needs were met.
People and relatives told us staff were caring, kind and treated people with dignity and respect. People were encouraged to develop and maintain their independence skills. Visitors were made to feel welcome.
Assessment and reviews of people’s care and support needs were undertaken regularly or more frequently when it was required. People and/or their relatives were included in these processes to ensure all needs were determined and addressed. People told us they would feel comfortable to raise any complaints they had with the staff or registered manager. Relatives told us they were always kept up to date with important information relating to their family member and could contact the registered manager at any time.
People and relatives told us the service was well-led and spoke positively of the management team at the home. Provider feedback processes had been used to gather information about the views of people and relatives about the service provision. The registered manager understood their regulatory responsibilities and their requirement to provide us (CQC) with notifications about important events and incidents that occurred whilst the service was delivering care.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 10 August 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
The inspection took place on 22 May 2017 and was unannounced. This was the first inspection of this provider who was registered with us in September 2016.
There was a registered manager in post and present during the inspection. 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.
People felt safe and they were protected from the risk of abuse by staff who had been trained and knew how to escalate concerns. Risks to people’s safety had been identified and staff knew how to support people safely. New staff were recruited safely and there was enough staff to support people during both day and night. People had their medicines as they had been prescribed.
Staff were able to meet people’s individual needs because they had received training and support they needed. Staff knew how to uphold people’s rights and obtain their consent to the care offered. People were fully involved in food shopping and the planning of their meals. People were actively supported to stay healthy and saw health professionals to support their needs.
People were treated with kindness and compassion. We saw that care was inclusive and people were enabled and encouraged to make decisions about how their care was planned and delivered. People described positive relations with staff.
People were encouraged and were supported to engage in social and recreational activities of their choice and supported to maintain employment. People knew how to raise any concerns they might have and were confident these would be listened to.
People told us that they were very happy with the quality of the service and that their views were listened to. We saw that the registered manager and staff created an inclusive culture within which people were respected and valued. People described both the registered manager and provider as friendly and approachable and they were complimentary about how the home was run. Systems were in place to monitor the standard and quality of the service.