The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Outlook Care - Hulse Avenue

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

1a Hulse Avenue, Collier Row, Romford, Essex, RM7 8NT (01708) 735944

Provided and run by:
Outlook Care

All Inspections

18 December 2017

During a routine inspection

1a Hulse Avenue 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.

At our last inspection on 9 July 2015, the service was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection on 18 December 2017, we found the service remained ‘Good’.

1a Hulse Avenue is a five bedded care home for people with learning disabilities and autism. 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. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen. At the time of our inspection, there were five people using the service.

The home had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the legal requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and the associated regulations on how the home is run.

People continued to receive safe care. At our last inspection we made a recommendation for the provider to review their staffing levels to ensure that people were supported safely. At this inspection, we found the provider had made improvements to ensure there were enough staff on duty to support people safely.

Pre employment checks were carried out, which ensured that staff were suitable to work with people who needed support.

Systems were in place to ensure medicines were administered safely and when needed.

Equipment in the service was safe to use. They were maintained and serviced regularly. People lived in an environment that was clean, safe and suitable for their needs.

Staff knew how to keep people safe. Risks to them were identified and there was guidance in place for staff to minimise these risks. People were supported by staff who had received training to provide a safe and effective service.

People continued to be supported by experienced staff who received training and support to enable them to continue to provide an effective service.

People’s nutritional needs were met. Staff worked with health and social care professionals, such as speech and language therapists and GPs, to ensure that people remained healthy and well.

The service was caring. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. They provided support to people at the end of their life that was caring, sensitive and respectful.

People were supported to have choice and remain as independent as possible. The service was compliant with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People and relatives were involved in decisions about their care. They were able to provide feedback and make suggestions about what they wanted from the service.

People continued to receive care and support that was responsive to their needs. They were supported by caring staff who treated them with respect. Their privacy and dignity were maintained. We saw that staff supported people patiently and were attentive to their needs. They engaged with people in a kind and considerate manner, which helped to foster a positive atmosphere in the service.

People were able to engage in activities and social events that they enjoyed. They were able to provide feedback and make suggestions about what they wanted from the service.

The service continued to be well led. Since the last inspection, a new register manager had started to manage the service. They had implemented systems to ensure the service the quality of service was monitored regularly and there was a positive culture of improvement.

09 July 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 9 July 2015. We last inspected the service on 8 November 2013 and found the service to be compliant in all areas inspected.

Hulse Avenue provides accommodation and support with personal care for up to five older and younger adults with learning disabilities, dementia, autism and physical disabilities. On the day of our visit there were five people using the service.

The service had a manager in post for five months who was in the process of being registered with the commission. 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.

People told us they liked living at Hulse Avenue. Staff had good knowledge on how to protect those in their care and how to report and respond to concerns of suspected abuse. Staff had a clear understanding of their responsibilities within the company’s safeguarding policy. Risk assessments were in place however were not always reviewed regularly. This meant people were not always supported by staff who had up to date information on how to minimise known risks.

Staff received on-going training to effectively carry out their role.

The service had robust systems in place to ensure appropriate staff were recruited in line with good practice. For example references and DBS (Disclosure and Barring Services) checks were completed prior to staff starting work.

Staff had an understanding of the systems in place to protect people who could not make decisions and followed the legal requirements outlined in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Robust medicine audits were carried out three times a day to ensure any errors were identified immediately and acted upon. This meant that people were protected against poor medicine management.

Observations showed that people were treated with dignity, respect and compassion. Staff were observed communicating with people in a manner they understood. Staff encouraged people to spend times with their peers and actively involve themselves in the local community where appropriate.

People were supported to maintain a healthy lifestyle. People were encouraged to participate in all aspects of the delivery of their care, for example choosing what they wanted to eat and drink, what to wear and what to do regarding activities.

Staff told us that they would be better supported if the manager spent more time at the service rather than at other services. Staff felt that the deputy manager worked both on the floor and in the office one day a week, however this was not enough to get all the work completed in the absence of the manager. Relatives told us, “We aren’t sure who the manager is”.

We found one area where we have made a recommendation to the service, which is detailed in the report.

8 November 2013

During a routine inspection

Due to people's communication needs we were only able to have limited discussions with people who used the service. However, one person told us "it's nice here" and "I like it here." People's needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. We found that care plans were in place which set out how the service was meeting the assessed needs of people, for example in relation to personal care. People had access to health care professionals including GP's and speech and language therapists. Medications were stored securely in the home.

We found that the home's physical environment had been adapted to meet the needs of people. Various safety checks were carried out, such as checks on the fire alarms, to make sure the premises were safe. Robust staff recruitment procedures were in place which included staff having to supply employment references and undertaking a Disclosure and Baring Service (DBS) check. A DBS check is a check carried out to see if the person has any criminal convictions of if they are on any list that bars them from working with children or vulnerable adults. The service had a complaints procedure in place. We were told that no complaints had been received by the service in the past year.

12 September 2012

During a routine inspection

We did not discuss all outcome areas with people using the service because although people had basic communication skills they were unable to fully answer and/ or understand some of the questions we were asking. However, some people told us 'they look after us'. We were able to observe staff providing care in a kind and respectful manner. One of the relatives told us, " This is a lovely home, the staff here really care for the people and I don't mean just care for their individual needs but actually really care about them' and that, 'It's always nice and clean here'. Another person told us, 'The staff are nice and the food is nice'.