Oakleigh

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 2 September 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Oakleigh is a specialist residential care home that provides personal care and accommodation for up to 11 people with physical disabilities, learning disability and autism. At the time of the inspection 10 people lived at the service.

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.

We carried out this assessment on 29 July and 5 August 2026 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 if we found any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

People told us they felt safe and would feel comfortable in saying if they did not. A person said, “The best thing about Oakleigh is the staff”. A relative told us, “The atmosphere at Oakleigh is a positive one. Staff always answer the phone in a cheerful and professional manner and are polite and friendly when we visit. A good balance is achieved between creating a community for the residents while respecting their privacy and individuality.” Staff had undertaken training to support their knowledge and understanding of how to keep people safe. They knew of their responsibilities to protect people from harm.

Risks to people were assessed and management plans were in place to inform staff how to reduce and manage risks to maintain people’s safety. Risk assessments were personalised and detailed and promoted positive risk taking and independence. The provider had a system to ensure all equipment was maintained and serviced.

A system was in place to record and monitor accidents and incidents within the service. The registered manager investigated all accidents and incidents, taking appropriate action to reduce the risk of recurrence and ensure people remained safe. We saw evidence that learning from incidents was embedded within the service, with appropriate actions identified, implemented, and monitored to improve safety and improve the quality of care.

People received their medicines on time and as prescribed. Staff understood and had applied the principles of STOMP (Stopping over medication of people with a learning disability and autistic people).

There were enough staff to meet people’s needs and to provide personalised care and support. People were supported by staff members they knew very well. This helped with consistency and continuity of care as staff were aware of the needs of people they were caring for. Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of people’s individual needs, preferences, and personal circumstances, enabling them to develop positive, respectful, and trusting relationships.

The service promoted an open, inclusive, and person-centred culture. Staff, people using the service, relatives, and external professionals were actively encouraged to contribute to the ongoing development and continuous improvement of the service.

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 Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (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.

There was a warm and friendly atmosphere at the service. The registered manager had a good oversight of staff culture and guided staff to ensure people enjoyed life. One person told us, “I absolutely adore the manager. They are great, everyone is great.” Most people had lived at the service for a long time. When people did move into the service, they were involved in the decision. Staff facilitated visits to the home as part of initial meetings and the assessment. This gave people the opportunity to meet each other and supported the person moving in to be involved in decision making about their future.

The registered manager maintained effective partnerships with the local community and relevant organisations, supporting a coordinated and collaborative approach to delivering high-quality care where people were truly a valued part of the local community.

Robust quality assurance and governance systems were in place to monitor the quality, safety, and effectiveness of the service. These processes supported continuous learning, identified areas for improvement, and helped drive positive outcomes for people using the service.