You are here

Community Outreach Consultancy Limited Office Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 29 November 2016

Community Outreach Consultancy Limited is a private case management service, providing case management, personal care and support services. The service undertakes assessments, and provides and reviews care and therapeutic services for children and adults who, as a result of medical negligence or personal injury, have suffered brain injury, or other serious medical conditions.

Community Outreach Consultancy Limited case-manages people's care following legal cases for compensation for acquired brain injury. People were often put in touch with the agency through their solicitor. The service could assist people with the legal aspects of litigation and represent them in court as well as helping them manage their care, support and housing needs.

The service coordinates services from an office base in Bisley, Gloucestershire. However, services were provided across a wide geographical area. At the time of this inspection the service provided the regulated activity to one person although the service was supporting 15 other people.

The service had a registered manager, who had been registered with us since 2009. 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. The registered manager was also the registered provider. They were supported by an office administrator.

People were very much involved in designing their own care package with the support of the registered manager. The role of the service was to provide support to the person and their family in navigating the health and social care system. Each package of care was bespoke to the person based on their requirements. Staff worked in partnership with other health professionals and family members to ensure the person’s needs were met. Staff were caring and supported people to lead the life they wanted.

The service could assist with the recruitment, training, supervision and appraisals of staff. Not everyone wanted this service. But where this service was being used, it was evident there were robust systems in place. This ensured suitable staff were employed to support people but also that they received an induction and on going training. This included supporting staff with supervisions and team meetings. A relative told us, “It takes the headache out of caring as all the paperwork and administration is done for you”. This included offering a payroll service on behalf of the person or their deputies under the court of protection.

The registered manager monitored the quality of the care and provided regular updates to the person’s deputy under the court of protection. The service was well led with clear lines of accountability. There was joint working with the person, their family, other health professionals, staff and the deputies of the court of protection.

Inspection areas



Updated 29 November 2016

The service was safe.

Risk assessments were in place to reduce the likelihood of a person coming to harm.

Medicines were managed safely.

Staff undertook safeguarding training and understood their responsibilities towards protecting people from abuse.

The service provided bespoke services in respect of the recruitment of staff depending on the requirements of the person and the family. This included offering employment advice or ensuring appropriate recruitment checks were completed to ensure staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people.



Updated 29 November 2016

The service was effective.

People received an effective service because staff provided support which met their individual needs. Care was tailored to the person.

People were involved in making decisions and staff knew how to protect people�s rights. People�s freedom and rights were respected by the registered manager and the staff who acted within the requirements of the law.

People were supported by staff who were knowledgeable about their care needs. Staff were trained and supported in their roles. Other health and social care professionals were involved in supporting people to ensure their needs were met.



Updated 29 November 2016

The service was caring.

People�s care was based around their individual needs and aspirations. Staff were creative in ways of ensuring people led active and fulfilling lives. People were supported to take part in regular activities. This included keeping in contact with friends and family.

Staff helped people develop their independence and reach their potential.

People were involved in day to day decisions about their care, including who their staff were.

Staff knew how to treat people with dignity and respect.



Updated 29 November 2016

The service was responsive.

Assessments and care plans were extremely person-centred and contained individual, detailed information about their needs and preferences. Care was planned flexibly to provide people with the service they wanted.

People were supported to make choices and had control of their lives. Staff were knowledgeable about people�s care needs. Care plans clearly described how people should be supported. People and their relatives were involved in developing and reviewing their plans.

Where complaints had been made these were listened to and addressed.



Updated 29 November 2016

The service was well led.

Staff were clear on their roles and the aims and objectives of the service and supported people in an individualised way.

There were clear lines of accountability and systems to monitor the quality and effectiveness of the service provided. People�s views were sought to improve the service.

There were systems in place to support and develop the workforce.