The Oaks Care Home

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 29 April 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of Assessment: 18 March to 9 April 2026. The Oaks Care Home provides long-term residential support for up to 12 people with a learning disability. The owner oversees the service and does not need to have a registered manager. At the time of inspection 8 people were using 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.

At the last inspection we identified a breach of regulation in relation to record keeping and the governance systems. At this inspection, improvements had been made, and the service was no longer in breach of regulation. However, the owner’s oversight of the service continued to rely heavily on their personal involvement. They had good insight into the service, but this was not fully reflected in records. The owner regularly stepped into care delivery, which reduced their capacity for auditing, delegation and strategic leadership. They were aware further improvements to record keeping were needed. They were taking action to address this and looking at how to delegate tasks to other staff. These issues had not impacted the quality of care people experienced, but did increase the risk that good practice was not always visible in documentation.

People experienced kind, respectful and personalised care from a stable and motivated staff team who knew them well. Staff supported people in ways that reflected their individual preferences, histories and changing needs, including maintaining relationships, religious practice, holidays and everyday routines as their mobility and health needs changed. People were relaxed and at ease with staff, and interactions were unhurried, compassionate and respectful. Evidence from our site visits, care records, and feedback from people showed the service was working in line with the principles of right support, right care, right culture.

People had often lived at the service for many years and appeared very content. Relatives spoke positively about the stability of support and the relationships their family members had built with staff. Care was delivered in a way that was personalised, consistent and based on long‑term relationships rather than task‑focused routines. Staff supported people to access the community, health appointments and meaningful activities that reflected their preferences.

Care was rights‑based and inclusive, supporting right care. Staff understood people’s needs well and used a range of communication approaches, including individualised communication systems and accessible information, to ensure people could express their views and make choices. People were involved in decisions about their care, and staff sought consent appropriately, with mental capacity assessments and best‑interest decisions completed where required. Medicines were managed safely, infection prevention and control systems were effective, and staff worked in partnership with health and social care professionals to respond to changes in people’s health.

There was a positive and inclusive culture within the service. Families told us they felt listened to and confident that staff would act quickly if concerns arose. Staff had developed effective partnership working with health and social care professionals, including learning disability teams and GPs. Staff told us they felt valued, supported and listened to, and described strong teamwork and approachable leadership. Training opportunities were good, including mandatory and role‑specific training such as Oliver McGowan training, which supported safe and informed practice. Recruitment practices met requirements, and improvements have been made since the last inspection to strengthen staffing stability and right‑to‑work checks.