Oak House

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 30 July 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

About the service

The service is a residential care home. There were 6 people using the service at the time of our assessment.

Who the service is for

This is a specialist service for people with a learning disability, and/or autism. The home was based within a community setting and people had their own bedrooms and bathrooms, and shared communal kitchen and lounge areas.

Key findings

We carried out this assessment on 21 and 22 July 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

An assessment has been undertaken of a specialist service that is used by autistic people or people with a learning disability. We have assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. The service was meeting the principles of Right support, right care, right culture’.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives. Capacity assessments were completed appropriately, and where people were unable to make decisions, best interest decisions were made with the involvement of relevant family members and professionals.

The service had effective systems in place to monitor incidents, manage risks and learn from events to improve safety. People were protected from harm through robust safeguarding procedures; staff were trained in relation to safeguarding people and staff told us there was a positive culture where concerns could be raised confidently. Risks were assessed and managed through detailed care plans, and regular environmental and fire safety checks were completed. People were supported by enough staff, with staff being safely recruited, trained and supported to meet people's needs. Medicines were generally managed safely, although a medicines storage temperature issue was identified during the inspection and was immediately addressed. Similarly, furniture requiring securing to walls was identified and promptly made safe.

People’s needs were thoroughly assessed, with detailed care plans covering health conditions, risks, nutrition and support requirements. Staff worked closely with healthcare professionals to ensure care was delivered in line with specialist advice and best practice. The service supported people to achieve their goals and maintain independence through personalised adaptations, accessible information and tailored equipment.

People received personalised, person-centred care that reflected their individual needs, preferences and communication styles. Staff used detailed communication guidance to support people to make choices and remain involved in decisions about their care and daily lives. People and relatives were involved through regular meetings, and complaints or concerns were listened to and responded to appropriately. Relatives told us they felt listened to, although further opportunities could be explored to evidence how feedback was gathered and used to improve the service. People were supported to take part in a wide range of activities and community opportunities, helping to promote inclusion, independence and meaningful experiences. Staff adapted their communication methods, including supporting people to learn sign language, to ensure equitable access to activities and decision-making.

The service had clear values focused on people's rights, equality, choice and independence. Staff told us there was a positive culture where they felt supported, worked well as a team and were able to approach the registered manager openly. Although staff supervision had not always been completed in line with the providers own policy, this had been identified and plans were in place to address it. There was a clear management structure and effective governance systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service, including regular audits and oversight from the leadership team. Staff and relatives spoke positively about the leadership of the service. The management team demonstrated a commitment to continuous improvement, responding positively to feedback and implementing quality improvement plans to drive ongoing development.