We carried out a review of the data available to us about Oaktrees 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 Oaktrees, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
Staff made sure that people were protected against the transmission of infection from visitors by scheduling visits, limiting areas that visitors could access and being available to escort visitors. They put appropriate actions into place to make sure people would be admitted safely into the service.
Staff adapted the layout of communal areas to support people to social distance from each other. The home was clean and staff had increased cleaning of frequently touched surfaces to reduce the risk of transmission of infection.
Staff had enough personal protective equipment, such as masks, gloves and aprons, and had supported people so that they also understood the need for this.
Regular COVID-19 testing was carried out to make sure staff could take the correct action to protect people.
The provider made sure staff and the manager received enough support during the pandemic and when additional staff were needed. Additional risk assessments were completed for staff at increased risk of catching COVID-19 and actions put into place to reduce risks to them.
Oaktrees is a residential care home providing personal care to six people living with a learning disability, aged 18 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to six people in one adapted building.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use 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 that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were happy with the care home and the staff that provided their care.
People felt safe living at the home because staff knew what they were doing, they had been trained, and cared for people in the way people wanted. Staff assessed and reduced risks as much as possible, and there was equipment in place to help people remain as independent as possible. There were enough staff. The provider obtained key recruitment checks before new staff started work.
People received their medicines and staff knew how these should be given. Medicine records were completed accurately and with enough detail. Staff supported people with meals and drinks. They used protective equipment, such as gloves and aprons to prevent the spread of infection. Staff followed advice from health care professionals and made sure they asked people’s consent before caring for them.
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.
People liked the staff that cared for them. Staff were kind and caring, they involved people in their care and made sure people’s privacy was respected. Staff worked well together, they understood the home’s aim to deliver high quality care, which helped people to continue to live as independently as possible.
Staff kept care records up to date and included national guidance if relevant. Complaints and concerns were dealt with and resolved.
Systems to monitor how well the home was running were carried out. Concerns were followed up to make sure action was taken to rectify any issues. Changes were made where issues had occurred elsewhere, so that the risk of a similar incident occurring again was reduced. People were asked for their view of the home and action was taken to change any areas they were not happy with.
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 can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and 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.
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 9 June 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.
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Staff knew how to respond to possible abuse and how to reduce risks to people. There were enough staff who had been recruited properly to make sure they were safe to work with people. Medicines were stored and administered safely.
People were cared for by staff who had received the appropriate training and had the skills and support to carry out their roles. Staff members understood and complied with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People received a choice of meals and staff supported them to eat and drink enough. They were referred to health care professionals as needed and staff followed the advice professionals gave them.
Staff were caring and kind and treated people with respect. People’s right to privacy was maintained by the actions and care given by staff members.
People’s personal and health care needs were met and care records guided staff in how to do this. There were enough activities or things for people to do during the day and people had enough social stimulation. Complaints were investigated and responded to and people knew who to go to, to do this.
Staff worked well together and felt supported by the management team. The monitoring process looked at systems throughout the home, identified issues and took the appropriate action to resolve these.
Further information is in the detailed findings below
Oaktrees provides accommodation and care for up to six people with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were five people living at the home. People are cared for on the two floors of the home. The home had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
This unannounced inspection was undertaken by one inspector on 16 December 2014. At our previous inspection on 13 July 2013 the provider was compliant with the regulations we inspected.
The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. We found that the provider and staff were knowledgeable about when a request for a DoLS would be required regarding changes in case law. We found that no one living at the home needed to be deprived of their liberty to ensure their safety. People who had limited capacity to make decisions were supported with their care and support needs which was in their best interests.
Staff had a good understanding of the procedures for protecting people from harm, who they could report any abuse to and what action they would take to ensure people were always kept safe.
People’s health care needs and levels of dependency were regularly assessed and these needs were appropriately responded to by a sufficient number of staff. This helped ensure that people’s care was planned and delivered in a way which respected their independence. Staff had a good understanding of how people’s needs were met and also how best to implement this knowledge. People were provided with sufficient quantities to eat and drink.
People’s dignity was respected by staff knocking on people's doors and gaining permission before entering. People were able to close or lock their door if this is what they preferred. People’s privacy was respected at all times.
Staff were supported with a comprehensive induction, given regular supervision and annual appraisals and this helped them perform their roles effectively.
People were supported with their social activities, working, hobbies and interests and they were encouraged to take risks where this was safe for them to do so.
The provider had an effective complaints process in place which was accessible to people, relatives and others who used or visited the service.
Staff told us, and records confirmed, that staff were only employed within the home after all pre-employment checks had been satisfactorily completed.
The provider had effective quality assurance systems in place to identify areas for improvement. Lessons learned were implemented across the provider’s other services. Audits completed by people in the home, the registered manager and staff identified where improvements were required and also where good care had been sustained.
People knew who the registered manager was and how they could raise any concerns with them. Health care professionals and commissioners of the service provided us with positive comments regarding how well the home was led by the registered manager.
We found that care records were current and reflected the needs of people. Staff demonstrated a good understanding and knowledge of the care and support people required.
A safeguarding policy for vulnerable adults was in place and staff had undertaken safeguarding training and were able to tell us how and when they would raise a concern.
There was a recruitment procedure in place to ensure that only people suitable to work with vulnerable people were employed. Staff received a wide range of training to equip them for their role.
During our inspection on 23 October 2012 we found that the property was in need of redecoration and external building work needed to be completed to maintain the safety of the home. During our inspection on 30 July 2013 we found that the provider had undertaken extensive external building work and some redecoration of the property. We judged that the property was safe and did not pose any risk to people who lived there.
We observed care being provided and talked with staff who were very knowledgeable about the people who lived at Oaktrees and they were able to understand their needs. Care records and the training offered by the provider enabled staff to meet people's health and care needs.
At our inspection in July 2011, we had concerns about the environment and the subsidence of the building. Following that inspection, we received information from the provider about the action they were going to take and that the work would be completed late spring 2012. During this inspection on 23 October 2012, although the provider had not fully completed the redecoration of the home and the external building work was still underway, they provided us with reassurance that the redecoration and ground work would be carried out as soon as possible. We judged that although the home could be better decorated it was not unsafe and did not pose any risk to the people who lived there. In order to be reasonable and proportionate we have not escalated our action on this occasion.