Oaklawn

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 13 July 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of assessment: 15 – 21 May 2026.

Oaklawn is a care home for up to 4 older people with a learning disability and/or autistic people. At the time of our assessment, 4 people lived at the home.

We 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.

We found the service was meeting this guidance, which meant people were supported in a way which maximised their dignity, choice and access to their local community.

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. Staff and management worked within the principles of the MCA. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions and had choice and control over their lives.

There were always enough staff available to meet people’s needs. Staff were recruited safely and had access to the induction, training and support they needed to carry out their roles.

Staff received safeguarding training and knew how to report any concerns they had about abuse or poor practice.

People lived in a safe, clean environment. People’s medicines were managed safely.

Staff understood the importance of gaining people’s consent to their care.

Staff kept people’s needs under review, including their health, emotional, and communication needs.

The registered manager and staff worked well with people’s families and professionals to achieve good outcomes for people.

The service had an open culture in which people were encouraged to speak up if they had concerns or suggestions. Feedback from people’s families was listened to and acted upon.

The provider’s governance systems enabled effective management oversight of the service.

Staff were well supported by the management team and had access to advice and guidance when they needed it.

Staff worked well together to meet people’s needs and there was a strong sense of teamwork.