The Oaks

We assessed a limited number of quality statements in the safe key question and found areas of concern. The scores for these areas have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Though the assessment of these areas indicated areas of concern since the last inspection, our rating for the key question remains good.

Staff supervision and training was completed in line with the provider’s policies. People were supported by staff who had the understanding and knowledge of how to keep them safe. However, people were not always protected from risk due to the lack of detailed information and guidance available to staff. People told us there was not always staff available. The principles of the MCA had not been fully embedded.

We assessed one quality statement in the effective key question and found areas of concern. The scores for this have been combined with scores based on the rating from the last inspection, which was good. Though the assessment of these areas indicated areas of concern since the last inspection, our rating for the key question remains good.

People felt they had day to day choices. However, people did not always feel they were always involved in decision making at the service. Documentation to guide staff practice was not consistently in place. The provider was in the process of reviewing their systems.

We identified one breach of legal regulation in relation to governance. Quality assurance systems were not always robust or consistently used to drive improvement at the home. Aspects of record keeping required improvement. This included information recorded in care plans and documentation in relation to people’s mental capacity. However, staff spoke positively about the management team; they felt supported and said there was a positive culture at the home. The service worked in partnership with other organisations to support people and there were systems in place to support workforce equality, diversity and inclusion.