We carried out a review of the data available to us about Oaklands 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 Oaklands, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice.
• When residents could not participate in external activities due to COVID-19, staff found ways to bring events into the home. These included running music nights, a Mexican-themed party, a beach-themed party and hosting a fireworks display for residents.
• Staff were passionate about caring for their residents, and had taken precautionary steps to ensure they could continue to deliver care in the event of unexpected lockdowns or outbreaks. Managers described examples of where staff had prepared to stay overnight to care for residents in the event of a sudden lockdown, or where staff members had stayed in temporary accommodation between shifts to minimise the spread of infection during the peak of the pandemic.
Oaklands is a residential care home providing personal care to people with a learning disability and/or autism. Oaklands accommodates up to eight people in one adapted building. At the time of this inspection, eight people were using the service.
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 and felt safe. Staff had an excellent understanding of people’s care and support needs. Support was provided by a consistent team of staff who had developed positive, caring relationships with people. Staff understood the importance of understanding people’s abilities and working with them to achieve positive outcomes.
People were treated with dignity and respect and their independence was promoted. Staff spent time getting to know people, their relatives and their life history. Activities and outings into the community were led by people.
People were looked after by staff who had the skills and knowledge to carry out their roles. Management encouraged staff to continuously develop their skills. Staff communicated effectively with relevant professionals to ensure people received healthcare support they required.
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. Choices people made were respected.
Systems were in place to continuously monitor the service. People and relatives’ views were listened to and respected. The service was responsive to people’s needs and the support provided had improved their well-being and independence.
People and staff spoke positively of the management team. The service was well-run by an experienced registered manager. The registered manager attended regular forums and events to build relationships and share best practice. The service had good links with the local community and other professionals to promote and improve people’s health.
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 3 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.
Oaklands is a purpose built care home that provided care for up to eight people with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of the inspection six people used the service.
The registered manager had been in post since the service opened last year. 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.
At the time of the inspection we met three of the people who used the service. All of the people had difficulty communicating their views but all indicated they were very happy with the service.
We found that the registered manager and staff consistently ensured people were supported to lead an independent lifestyle.
People who used the service required staff to provide support to manage their day-to-day care needs; to develop impulse control; as well as to manage their behaviour and reactions to their emotional experiences. We found that the registered manager had taken appropriate steps to ensure staff provided consistent responses and took appropriate action when people’s needs changed, which had ensured staff could continue to meet the individual’s needs.
We saw assessments were completed, which identified people’s health and support needs as well as any risks to people who used the service and others. These assessments were used to create plans to reduce the risks identified as well as support plans.
People were offered plenty to eat and assisted to select healthy food and drinks which helped to ensure that their nutritional needs were met. We saw that each individual’s preference was catered for and people were supported to manage their weight.
There were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. We found that staff understood and appropriately used safeguarding procedures.
People were supported to maintain good health and had access to healthcare professionals and services. People were supported and encouraged to have regular health checks and were accompanied by staff to hospital appointments.
Staff had received a range of training, which covered mandatory courses such as fire safety, infection control and first aid as well as condition specific training such as working with people who have learning disabilities and autistic spectrum disorders.
Staff had also received training around safeguarding vulnerable adults and clearly understood how to implement these procedures. We observed that staff consistently maintained people’s privacy and dignity. We found that staff treated people with respect and compassion.
Staff had also received training around the application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. The staff we spoke with understood the requirements of the MCA and were ensuring that where appropriate this legislation was used.
People and the staff we spoke with told us that there were enough staff on duty. We found there were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs.
Effective recruitment and selection procedures were in place and we saw that appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work. The checks included obtaining references from previous employers to show staff employed were safe to work with vulnerable people.
We reviewed the systems for the management of medicines and found that people received their medicines safely.
We saw that the registered manager had an effective system in place for dealing with people’s concerns and complaints.
We found that the building was very clean and well-maintained. Appropriate checks of the building and maintenance systems were undertaken to ensure health and safety, relevant infection control procedures were followed by the staff at the service. We found that action was taken to minimise known risks.
The registered manager had developed a range of systems to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. We saw that the registered manager had implemented these and used them to critically review the service.