Outlook House

Updated 14 November 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 25 September 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection was undertaken by one inspector.

We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed information we held about the service. This included previous inspection reports, any complaints and notifications. A notification is information about important events which the service is required to send us by law. This helped us with the planning of the inspection. We contacted the local authority, five healthcare and social care professionals and two relatives for feedback on the care provided.

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the views and experiences of people, as they were not able to tell us about their experiences due to their learning disability. We observed people’s care and support in communal areas throughout our inspection to help us understand the experiences people had. We spoke with six people individually. We also spoke with the nominated individual for the organisation, a director, the manager, and four care staff. We looked around the service in general, including the communal areas, and a sample of people’s bedrooms. We looked at menus, medicines administration records, the compliments and complaints log, incident and accidents records, records for the maintenance and testing of the building and equipment, policies and procedures, meeting minutes, staff training records and three staff recruitment records. We also looked at five care plans and supporting risk assessments, along with other relevant documentation, to support our findings. We ‘pathway tracked’ two people living at Outlook House. This is when we looked at their care documentation in depth and obtained their views on how they found living in the service. This is an important part of our inspection process, as it allows us to capture information about a selected group of people receiving care. We also looked at the provider’s own improvement plan and quality assurance audits.

The service was last inspected on 11 July 2017, when the overall rating for the service was Requires Improvement.

Updated 14 November 2018

This inspection took place on 25 September 2018 and was unannounced. Outlook House is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion.

Support was provided to up 12 adults with learning disabilities or autism and who may also have a sensory impairment. People were supported to develop their life skills and increase their independence. Accommodation is in a large period house. People have single occupancy rooms, either on the ground or first floors, with en-suite facilities. The service is near to local shops and facilities and public transport. The service also has its own transport, which was used to get people to and from any activities that were arranged. A learning centre, which was on site, provided an educational and training facility to promote people’s independence. This was also used by people from the provider’s other two services. Ten people were living in the service, at the time of our inspection, but one person was away on holiday with their family.

The service did not have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. Since the last inspection a new manager had commenced working in the service. The CQC has not yet received their application to become the registered manager.

At the previous inspection on 11 July 2017, the service received a rating of ‘Requires Improvement’. This was because we found guidance had not been followed in relation to legionella. Checks to ensure hot water was at a safe temperature, to protect people, had not been maintained. There also was a lack of regular and effective auditing and monitoring of the quality of the service in all areas. At this inspection we found this had been rectified.

People and their relatives told us that people were safe. They told us they could raise concerns and know they would be listened to. Policies and procedures were in place to safeguard people. Staff were aware of what actions they needed to take, in the event of a safeguarding concern being raised. There were systems to manage medicine safely. The building and equipment had been subject to regular maintenance checks. Infection control procedures were in place.

People's individual care and support needs were assessed, before they moved into the service. Care and support provided was personalised and based on the identified needs of each individual. A member of staff told us, “There is a lot of choice offered here. There are always options. “People were supported to develop their life skills and increase their independence. People, where possible, were being supported to move onto supported living accommodation, for people with a learning disability. This is where people receive support to enable them to take control of their life. People’s support plans and risk assessments were detailed.

People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. People were treated with respect and dignity by staff who were kind and caring. One person told us, “I love it here. The people are lovely. The staff are lovely. “People were spoken with and supported in a sensitive, respectful and professional manner.

Staff told us they were supported to develop their skills and knowledge, by receiving training which helped them to carry out their roles and responsibilities effectively. Staff told us that communication throughout the service was good and included comprehensive handovers at the beginning of each shift. They had received supervision and appraisal and had regular staff meetings. They felt they knew people’s care and support needs and were kept informed of any changes. They confirmed that they felt valued and supported by the senior staff, who they described as very approachable. They told us the team worked well together.

There were sufficient numbers of suitable staff, to keep people safe and meet their care and support needs. Robust recruitment procedures were in place. The number of staff on duty had enabled people to be supported to attend educational courses, participate in voluntary work and in social activities in the community.

Peoples individual dietary requirements formed part of their pre-admission assessment and people were regularly consulted about their food preferences. One person told us,” We have delicious food.” People had access to healthcare professionals, when needed.

Staff confirmed that they felt valued and supported by the managers, who they described as very approachable. People and their representatives were asked to complete a satisfaction questionnaire, and people had the opportunity to attend weekly resident’s meetings. The comments people made had led to changes in practice.