Oak House

Updated 23 July 2019

The inspection:

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

Inspection team:

The inspection was under taken by one adult social care inspector.

Service and service type:

Oak House is a ‘care home.’ People in homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service specialises in providing care and support to people with learning disabilities and other complex needs such as sensory impairments and physical disabilities. The home consists of two, adapted, wheelchair accessible bungalows; Oak House which can accommodate up to four people, and the Acorns, which is an annexe accommodating two people.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection:

We visited Oak House on 7 May 2019. We gave the registered manager short notice that we were going to visit. This was because this is a small service and we wanted to be sure people would be there when we visited. Additionally, people who use the service have complex communication needs and we wanted to provide time for people to be told about our visit in ways that were accessible to them, such as ‘life stories.’

What we did:

The provider had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR) in April 2019. This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. This information was used to help inform our inspection.

Prior to the inspection we reviewed information we had received about the service. This included reviewing any notifications of accidents and incidents and information we had received from external agencies. We also received feedback about the service from one social care professional.

This inspection included spending time with three people who lived at the home, the registered manager, the registered manager from a sister home run by the provider, two senior care workers, two care workers, the nominated individual and the provider’s quality lead. We reviewed three people's care records, two staff personnel files, audits and other records about the management of the service. We spent time observing interactions between staff and people in the home and following the inspection, we spoke with two relatives of people who lived at the home. After the inspection we requested further information from the registered manager. This was received, and the information was considered as part of our inspection.

Updated 23 July 2019

About the service:

Oak House is a care home registered to care for six people who have a learning disability. At the time of the inspection six people were using the service.

People’s experience of using this service:

The service reflected the principals of Registering the Right Support guidance, providing person-centred care and support. The service had a homely feel with care and attention to ensuring each person had a bespoke living environment taking into consideration their likes, preferences and sensory needs. There was space for people to spend time alone, and to socialise with others. The service promoted people’s choice, control, independence and inclusion. People’s support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

People were safe and protected from avoidable harm and relevant risk assessments were in place. People who used the service communicated to us that they felt safe living in the home. Their relatives we spoke with spoke positively about the standard of care and support their family members received. People's medicines were managed well, and the home was seen to be clean and tidy throughout.

There were enough staff and they had been recruited in a way that helped to keep people safe. There were enough staff on duty to ensure people’s needs were met. New staff received support to help them learn their role. All staff received appropriate training, support and supervision.

People were supported to eat and drink. Where people had specific dietary needs, these were provided for. Communication was effective within the staff team and people were supported to access other healthcare professionals as needed.

People were supported to make day to day choices and decisions about their lives and were able to participate in their hobbies and interests. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Staff were kind and caring towards people and had developed very strong relationships with them, knowing them well, including their histories, likes and dislikes. People were treated with dignity and respect, they were involved in making daily decisions and encouraged to develop and maintain their independence.

Care plans were personalised and detailed. They included information about people’s preferences and abilities. Staff supported people to participate in a range of activities. There was a focus on treating people with equality. Bespoke techniques were used to involve and empower those with communication difficulties to ensure their voices were heard and valued. There was a system in place to manage complaints.

Leadership and management were of good quality and people who used the service, their relatives and representatives were fully involved in how the service was run and operated. Systems of governance were in place to continually monitor the quality of the service provided and staff felt supported and spoke positively about the registered provider and the registered manager.

Rating at last inspection:

The service was rated good at the last inspection in 2016 (published 17 November 2016).

Why we inspected:

This was a planned inspection based on the rating awarded at the last inspection.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk