The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Stratford Road

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

127 Stratford Road, London, E13 0JN (020) 3486 4250

Provided and run by:
Look Ahead Care and Support Limited

Important:

We served a Warning Notice on Look Ahead Care and Support Limited on 16 March 2026 for failing to meet the regulations relating to good governance at Stratford Road.

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of inspection 25 February to 3 March 2026. Stratford Road is a residential care home supporting autistic people and people with a learning disability. At the time of the inspection, 2 people were living in the service. Each person had their own self-contained flat within the service.

We have undertaken a comprehensive inspection which means we have reviewed all 33 quality statements. We carried out this inspection owing to an aged rating. The previous CQC rating for this service was good. Following this inspection, we have rated the service requires improvement.

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and access to communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is a guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people which providers must adhere to. We found the provider was not consistently meeting the principles of Right Support, right care, right culture. At this inspection we found a breach of legal regulations. This breach was in relation to good governance.

Governance systems were not always effective. Audits had failed to address risks around fire safety and medicines management which meant elements of people’s care was unsafe.

Risks to people’s safety were not assessed and managed safely and the provider did not have robust processes in place to identify and act upon such concerns.

People were not always receiving the right support. Restrictions in people’s lives were not adequately assessed and monitored, and we found unnecessary restrictions were in place.

People were not always supported in a way which reflected a positive culture. Staff did not always involve people in conversations about their care. Staff spoke about people without consulting them. This demonstrated a lack dignity and respect.

Whilst the home had a manager and deputy manager in post, a registered manager had not been in post since May 2025. This service is required to have a manager who is registered with CQC.

In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded.

25 September 2018

During a routine inspection

Stratford Road is a small care home for people with learning disabilities who may have mental health difficulties. 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.

This inspection took place on 25 September and 3 October 2018. The inspection was announced. This was the first inspection since the service first registered in October 2017.

The service did not have a registered manager. There was a manager in post who had applied to become registered. 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.

Staff were knowledgeable about reporting safeguarding concerns and whistleblowing. People had risk assessments carried out to mitigate the risks of harm they may face at home and in the community. Building safety checks were carried out in line with building safety requirements. The provider carried out appropriate checks on new staff before new staff began to work in the service. There were enough staff on duty to keep people safe and to meet their needs. There were systems in place to record the administration of medicines and store medicines safely. However, there were no guidelines in place for a medicine for one person which was to be used only as needed. People were protected from the risks associated with the spread of infection. Accidents and incidents were recorded and were used to learn lessons and improve the service.

People’s needs were assessed before they began to use the service to make sure the right care could be provided. Staff were supported with training opportunities, supervisions and appraisals to enable them to carry out their role effectively. Communication systems were in place to keep staff and stakeholders updated on people’s wellbeing. People were supported to eat nutritional and cultural food and to maintain their health. Staff understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the need to obtain consent before delivering care.

Staff explained how they developed caring relationships with people using the service. The provider had a ‘keyworking’ system in place where a named staff member had overall responsibility for ensuring all of a person’s needs were met. Relatives were consulted and involved in decisions about care. Staff were knowledgeable about equality and diversity. People’s privacy and dignity were promoted, and they were supported to maintain their independence.

Care plans were personalised and contained people’s preferences. Staff understood how to deliver personalised care. People were supported to achieve their personal goals and were able to participate in a range of activities. Staff supported people with their communication needs. The provider had a complaints procedure and an end of life care policy.

Relatives, stakeholders and staff spoke positively about the management of the service. The provider had a system to obtain feedback from people using the service and stakeholders. Staff had regular meetings to be updated on the wellbeing of people using the service, developments of the service and to make suggestions for improvement. The provider had quality assurance systems in place to identify areas of improvement. The service worked in partnership with other agencies to share examples of good practice and to improve the service provided.

We have made one recommendation about medicines management.