We carried out a review of the data available to us about Outlook Care - Neave Crescent on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Outlook Care - Neave Crescent, you can give feedback on this service.
74 Neave Crescent 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.
74 Neave Crescent is a ten 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 seven people using the service, including one person who was receiving respite care for a short period, who lived in a separate unit.
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.
At our last inspection, we made a recommendation for the provider to record how people with communication difficulties were supported to express their choices to staff in their everyday lives. At this inspection, we found the provider had taken action. They made improvements to care plans, which now detailed how best to communicate with people so that staff could understand their needs and preferences.
People continued to receive safe care. Risks to people were identified and there was guidance in place for staff to minimise these risks. There were safeguarding processes in place to protect people from abuse. Staff were aware of the whistleblowing policy and could approach other organisations if they had any concerns about the provider.
People were supported by staff who had received training to provide a safe and effective service.
Systems were in place to ensure medicines were administered safely and when needed.
Equipment in the service was maintained and serviced regularly. People lived in an environment that was safe and suitable for their needs.
Accidents or incidents were investigated and recorded. Lessons were learnt to minimise the risk of reoccurrence.
There were enough staff on duty to support people. Recruitment processes were safe, which ensured that staff were suitable to work with people who needed support.
People were supported to have choice and remain as independent as possible. The provider was compliant with the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
People and their relatives were involved in decisions about their care.
People’s nutritional needs were met and they were supported with any specific dietary requirements they had.
Staff worked with health and social care professionals, such as speech and language therapists and GPs, to ensure that people remained healthy and well.
People continued to receive support from staff who were caring and which was responsive to their needs. They were supported by staff who treated them with respect and ensured they were given privacy and dignity in their lives.
We saw that staff supported people patiently and were attentive to their needs. People were able to engage in activities and social events that they enjoyed.
People and their relatives were able to provide feedback about the service and complete satisfaction surveys. There was a complaints procedure in place and all complaints were investigated by the management team.
The service continued to be well led. The management team ensured the quality of the service was monitored regularly. The registered manager worked well with other organisations to ensure people received the care and support they needed.
We inspected 74 Neave Crescent on 22 October 2015. This was an unannounced inspection.
74 Neave Crescent is a registered care home providing accommodation for up to 10 people with learning disabilities who require personal care. There are six beds in a residential unit and four beds in a separate respite unit. Respite care is for people who usually receive care in their own home but may stay in the service for a short period to give their full time family carers some leave. At the time of the inspection eight people were using the service. During our last inspection on 25th February 2014, we found that the service was compliant with all regulations we checked.
There was a registered manager at the service at the time of our inspection. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered care homes, 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.
We found that 74 Neave Crescent provided personalised care and people were encouraged to be independent. There was a caring culture within the service and staff knew people well. The care plans contained a good level of information setting out exactly how each person should be supported to ensure their needs were met. The support plans included risk assessments on how to keep people safe. The care plans contained one page profiles of each person but these were not signed by the person or a family member because the service had not asked them to, however the registered manager outlined his plans to address this. There was involvement from family members in the planning of their care.
Staff received regular one to one supervision and undertook regular training. People were supported and gave consent to care and the service operated in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts and had choice over what they ate. They were supported to access healthcare professionals. Their finances were managed and audited regularly by staff and the registered manager. People were given their prescribed medicines safely and were cared for by sufficient numbers of suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Robust recruitment and selection procedures were in place and appropriate checks had been undertaken before staff began work.
Staff had good relationships with the people and the atmosphere was happy and relaxed. We observed interactions between staff and people and saw staff were caring and respectful. Staff knew how to respect people’s privacy and dignity. People were supported to attend meetings where they could express their views about the service.
People were supported to go out into the community. We have made a recommendation about supporting people with communication difficulties to express their choices. People using the service pursued their own individual activities and interests, with the support of staff if required. People and their relatives felt comfortable about sharing their views and talking to the registered manager if they had any concerns. The registered manager demonstrated a very good understanding of their role and responsibilities, and staff told us the registered manager was always very supportive. There were robust systems in place to routinely monitor the safety and quality of the service provided. There was a clear management structure in the service.
The service supported people appropriately and regularly reviewed people's care and support needs. People and their relatives were involved in decisions about their care. People were cared for in an environment that was safe and well maintained. Records were accurate and fit for purpose.
We found that people were involved in making decisions about their own treatment and care and that care was planned and delivered according to assessed need. There were processes in place to protect people from potential abuse and there were enough suitably trained staff to meet the needs of the service. We also found that there were adequate quality checks in place to ensure that the service delivered to people was good enough.