- Care home
Outlook Care - Dagenham Road
Assessment report published 1 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
We carried out this assessment on 26 August 2026.This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment 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 on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
There were systems in place to promote a learning culture. For example, accidents and incidents were viewed to see what could be learned to prevent future such incidents occurring. People were protected from the risk of abuse through appropriate procedures and staff training. Risk assessments were in place for people which included information about how to support people in a safe way. Various checks were carried out to help ensure the premises were safe, for example, on fire safety systems. There were enough staff to support people and robust staff recruitment practices were in place. Medicines were mostly managed in a safe way, although we found 2 unexplained gaps on medicines administration records.
People’s needs were assessed and care plans were in place. People were involved in developing their care plans to ensure they reflected what was important to them. People’s care was monitored, for example, through daily records and care plans were subject to review. This meant they continued to reflect people’s needs as they changed over time. People were able to consent to their care and had the capacity to make decisions for themselves.
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. We found that nobody was subject to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations and everyone was free to come and go from the service was they chose.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Their independence and choice were promoted. Staff told us how they helped people in a caring way that respected their privacy and enabled them to make choices. A member of staff said, “You chat with them [people], interact with them. If they don’t give you permission [to provide support with personal care] you have to leave them. You give them the choice of what they want to eat.”
People received person-centred care, care plans were based around the needs of individuals. They were involved in planning their own care. They were involved in their care plan reviews and regular resident’s meetings were held. People had access to various community services, these included social and leisure activities and relevant healthcare professionals.
There was a registered manager in place who was supported in the day to day running of the service by a deputy manager. Staff spoke positively about the management and the working atmosphere at the service. A member of staff said, “[Registered manager] is a good manager, they make things clear.” Various quality assurance and monitoring systems were in place. For example, audits, surveys and staff meetings. Staff were supported to develop in their role and had access to regular training and 1 to 1 supervision meetings with their manager.
People's experience of this service
During our visit to the service, we spoke with people and observed how staff interacted with them and supported them. After our visit we contacted relatives to get their views on the service.
Care was provided in line with people’s preferences. Care plans were person-centred and people were involved in developing them. Staff had a good understanding of people’s needs and how to meet them.
People were supported to make choices, for example, we observed people choosing their own breakfasts. People were also able to choose the gender of their care staff. People told us they were able to make choices about their support. People were able to develop independent living skills. A person told us, “I change my pillowcase and my bedding.” The same person added, “I work hard on Sundays, I help with the Sunday lunch. I enjoy doing the cooking.” Another person said, “You do get very nice meals here, they are lovely.” Another person told us, I have to wash up what I use. I do my own laundry.” They added, “We do get a choice of meals.”
Staff had a good understanding of how to protect people’s privacy and treat them with dignity. Throughout our inspection we observed staff knocking on doors and waiting for an answer before entering people’s bedrooms. We observed staff interacted with people in a kind and caring manner. People were seen to be at ease and relaxed in the company of staff. We saw there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. People told us they liked the staff. A person said, “They [staff] are friendly with me.” The same person also said, “[Named staff member] is very nice, they treat people well.” Another person told us, “I really like [named staff member]. They are the queen.” A relative said, “They [staff] seem to be caring.”
There were no Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations in place, and the registered manager told us people were free to come and go from the home as they pleased. We observed this to be the case during our inspection. A person told us, “I go to the shops by myself, I go to the bank in Romford. I go on the bus, I have a Freedom Pass.” Another person said, “I go out on my own to Romford and Heathway. I buy tops and jeans.” Communal areas of the home, including the garden, were accessible to people. We saw people were able to help themselves to food and drink from the kitchen as they wished. People told us they could raise issues of importance to them. A person said, “I would talk to the manager, and they would sort it out [if they had a concern].”
People were supported to engage in activities of their choice in the community. One person said, “I go to bowling at the YMCA.” Another person said, “I go to football once a week, I love it. The staff take me.”
The service ensured people had access to healthcare professionals as required. We noted on the day of inspection one person was supported to attend a GP appointment and another person was visited at the home by a healthcare professional. A person told us, “I went to the GP this morning for a check-up.” Relatives told us people were treated with care and respect. A relative said, “Years ago, it was completely different staff. [Person] would walk out looking a mess, didn’t have shoes on his feet, trousers falling down, staff didn’t give a crap. Now they have turned around completely, he’s like a new person.”