The Care Quality Commission
  • Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Archived: Ambitious about Autism Service- Barnet College

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Grahame Park Way, London, NW9 5RA (020) 8266 4158

Provided and run by:
Ambitious about Autism

All Inspections

16 and 22 July 2014

During a routine inspection

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 and to pilot a new inspection process being introduced by the Care Quality Commission (CQC) which looks at the overall quality of the service.

The provider met all of the regulations we inspected against at our last inspection on 28 September 2013.

Ambitious about Autism provides care and support to young people aged 16 to 25 with autism to access further education, gain skills and confidence. The service is based at Barnet college and operates during the day. On the day of our visit eight people were using the service.

The service had a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service and shares the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law with the provider.

Staff working at the service understood people’s individual needs and we saw all staff treated people with kindness. People and relatives were happy with the care and support they received from staff.

Professionals were kept up to date with changes in people’s needs and were invited to their review meetings. Staff supported people to access health professionals if needed.

Staff were appropriately trained and skilled to work with people who had autism, which ensured the care and support provided to people was safe and appropriate. We saw that all staff had received an induction when they started working at the service and understood their roles and responsibilities.

We saw that people and their relatives were involved in the planning of their care and educational needs as well as how the service was run. We saw people were treated with dignity, privacy and respect by all staff.

The registered manager assessed and monitored the quality of the service consistently and encouraged feedback from people, relatives and staff, which they used to make improvement to the service. The people who used the service were able to access advocacy services should they need support and help to make important decisions.

At the time of our inspection plans were underway for the service to transition to a college, Ambitious College. This occurred in September 2014.

26 September 2013

During a routine inspection

We asked the provider how people's views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered. We were told that a pre enrolment assessment took place covering likes, dislikes and communication skills. We looked at three care plans and saw that this assessment had been documented.

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We looked at four care plans. We saw that they had recently been reviewed and that they contained standard risk assessments for college, transport, home and community activities.

We spoke with two care workers one of whom had started within the past four weeks. They were able to describe possible types of abuse including physical, financial and emotional abuse. A team leader we spoke with was able to explain the process for reporting a safeguarding concern to the local authority.

Relatives spoke positively about care workers' skill and expertise. One relative of someone who received personal care at home observed that the care workers 'never seemed out of their depth' and went on to observe that 'the district nurses couldn't do their job without them."

The provider told us that when care workers returned people to their homes, they provided relatives with a hand over note which also contained a section for relatives to feedback concerns via the care worker.

14 December 2012

During a routine inspection

People's privacy, dignity and independence were respected. We saw staff using picture cards to communicate effectively with people unable to communicate verbally. Individualized support programmes in place enabled people to access mainstream college courses. The service ultimately aimed to identify employment opportunities, promoting people's independence and community involvement.

A relative told us 'the service seems fine and addresses his individual needs'. People experienced care and support that met their needs and protected their rights. Detailed risk assessments were in place and action taken to mitigate risks. Procedures were in place for dealing with emergencies.

Staff had received training in safeguarding and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They were aware of the types of abuse and rules governing restraint. They understood the organisation's safeguarding procedures and knew to contact the local safeguarding team if they had any concerns. People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse.

Staff had received induction and other training in accordance with the organisation's policy. They felt well supported by their managers and formal supervisions took place every three months. Staff received appropriate professional development.

Feedback was made to parents on a continuous basis which had resulted in changes to support plans. The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service received.