Oaktrees is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to six people with a learning disability or autistic spectrum disorder. The home is a detached, two storey house and is located in a residential area in a rural village.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Staff knew how to respond to possible abuse and how to reduce risks to people. There were enough staff who had been recruited properly to make sure they were safe to work with people. Medicines were stored and administered safely.

People were cared for by staff who had received the appropriate training and had the skills and support to carry out their roles. Staff members understood and complied with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives. Staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People received a choice of meals and staff supported them to eat and drink enough. They were referred to health care professionals as needed and staff followed the advice professionals gave them.

Staff were caring and kind and treated people with respect. People’s right to privacy was maintained by the actions and care given by staff members.

People’s personal and health care needs were met and care records guided staff in how to do this. There were enough activities or things for people to do during the day and people had enough social stimulation. Complaints were investigated and responded to and people knew who to go to, to do this.

Staff worked well together and felt supported by the management team. The monitoring process looked at systems throughout the home, identified issues and took the appropriate action to resolve these.

Further information is in the detailed findings below

Oaktrees provides accommodation and care for up to six people with a learning disability. At the time of our inspection there were five people living at the home. People are cared for on the two floors of the home. The home had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

This unannounced inspection was undertaken by one inspector on 16 December 2014. At our previous inspection on 13 July 2013 the provider was compliant with the regulations we inspected.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. We found that the provider and staff were knowledgeable about when a request for a DoLS would be required regarding changes in case law. We found that no one living at the home needed to be deprived of their liberty to ensure their safety. People who had limited capacity to make decisions were supported with their care and support needs which was in their best interests.

Staff had a good understanding of the procedures for protecting people from harm, who they could report any abuse to and what action they would take to ensure people were always kept safe.

People’s health care needs and levels of dependency were regularly assessed and these needs were appropriately responded to by a sufficient number of staff. This helped ensure that people’s care was planned and delivered in a way which respected their independence. Staff had a good understanding of how people’s needs were met and also how best to implement this knowledge. People were provided with sufficient quantities to eat and drink.

People’s dignity was respected by staff knocking on people's doors and gaining permission before entering. People were able to close or lock their door if this is what they preferred. People’s privacy was respected at all times.

Staff were supported with a comprehensive induction, given regular supervision and annual appraisals and this helped them perform their roles effectively.

People were supported with their social activities, working, hobbies and interests and they were encouraged to take risks where this was safe for them to do so.

The provider had an effective complaints process in place which was accessible to people, relatives and others who used or visited the service.

Staff told us, and records confirmed, that staff were only employed within the home after all pre-employment checks had been satisfactorily completed.

The provider had effective quality assurance systems in place to identify areas for improvement. Lessons learned were implemented across the provider’s other services. Audits completed by people in the home, the registered manager and staff identified where improvements were required and also where good care had been sustained.

People knew who the registered manager was and how they could raise any concerns with them. Health care professionals and commissioners of the service provided us with positive comments regarding how well the home was led by the registered manager.

During our inspection on 30 July 2013 we found that people who lived at the home were involved in decisions taken and the in the planning their care. One person told us; " I like living here".

We found that care records were current and reflected the needs of people. Staff demonstrated a good understanding and knowledge of the care and support people required.

A safeguarding policy for vulnerable adults was in place and staff had undertaken safeguarding training and were able to tell us how and when they would raise a concern.

There was a recruitment procedure in place to ensure that only people suitable to work with vulnerable people were employed. Staff received a wide range of training to equip them for their role.

During our inspection on 23 October 2012 we found that the property was in need of redecoration and external building work needed to be completed to maintain the safety of the home. During our inspection on 30 July 2013 we found that the provider had undertaken extensive external building work and some redecoration of the property. We judged that the property was safe and did not pose any risk to people who lived there.

During our inspection on 23 October 2012, we spoke with three people who used the service, they told us they were very happy with the care they received. All the people we spoke with told us they felt safe living at the home and they were able to make choices about whether they wished to participate in activities.

We observed care being provided and talked with staff who were very knowledgeable about the people who lived at Oaktrees and they were able to understand their needs. Care records and the training offered by the provider enabled staff to meet people’s health and care needs.

At our inspection in July 2011, we had concerns about the environment and the subsidence of the building. Following that inspection, we received information from the provider about the action they were going to take and that the work would be completed late spring 2012. During this inspection on 23 October 2012, although the provider had not fully completed the redecoration of the home and the external building work was still underway, they provided us with reassurance that the redecoration and ground work would be carried out as soon as possible. We judged that although the home could be better decorated it was not unsafe and did not pose any risk to the people who lived there. In order to be reasonable and proportionate we have not escalated our action on this occasion.

We observed people as they participated in activities and daily routines and we spoke with one person who told us what they had been doing during the previous week. The other people present in the home during our visit had very limited communication. We engaged with one person whilst they were carrying out an activity and observed that interactions between staff and people was upbeat and appropriate.