You are here

Outlook Care- The Bungalow Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 3 October 2018

Outlook Care - The Bungalow is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual arrangement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Outlook Care - The Bungalow accommodates six adults with learning disabilities or autism in one building on one level. 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 life as any citizen.

The inspection took place on 2 and 6 August 2018 and was unannounced. This was the first inspection since the service was registered under the provider Outlook Care in August 2017.

The service had a registered manager. 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 safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures. The provider carried out safe recruitment checks before new staff began employment. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. Building checks were carried out to ensure the safety of the premises in line with building requirements. Risk assessments were carried out to mitigate the risks of harm people may face at home and in the community. People were protected from the risks associated with the spread of infection. The provider analysed accidents and incidents and used this as a learning tool to make improvements to the service.

People’s care needs were assessed before they began to use the service to ensure the provider could meet their needs. Staff were supported with training opportunities, supervisions and appraisals. People were supported to eat a nutritionally balanced diet and to maintain their health. Important information such as changes in people’s care needs was communicated during staff handover. The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the need to obtain consent before delivering care.

Relatives told us staff were caring. Staff described how they developed caring relationships with people. Relatives were kept updated on the wellbeing of their family member. People had a named care worker who had overall responsibility for their care. Staff were knowledgeable about equality and diversity. People were supported to maintain their independence and their privacy and dignity was promoted.

Staff understood how to deliver personalised care. Care plans were personalised and contained people’s preferences. People were offered a variety of activities in accordance with their preferences and each person had an individualised activity programme. The service was meeting people’s accessible communication needs. The service had a complaints procedure and kept a record of compliments.

Relatives and staff gave positive feedback about the management of the service. The provider had a system to obtain feedback about the service in order to make improvements. People had regular meetings so their preferences could be heard. Staff had regular meetings to keep updated on service development and to contribute their views on the running of the service. The provider had several quality audit systems to identify issues to improve the service delivered. The registered manager worked in partnership with outside agencies to share examples of good practice.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 3 October 2018

The service was safe. Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures. There were enough staff on duty to meet people�s needs and safe recruitment checks were made before staff were employed.

Risk assessments were carried out and included plans to mitigate risks which people using the service may face. The building was safe in line with building requirements.

Medicines were managed safely. People were protected from the risk of the spread of infection. The provider used accidents and incidents to improve the service provided.

Effective

Good

Updated 3 October 2018

The service was effective. People had their care needs assessed before they began to use the service. Staff were supported with regular opportunities of training, supervisions and appraisals.

People had access to healthcare as they needed. Staff supported people with their nutritional and hydration needs with a varied menu. The premises was designed to meet people�s needs.

The service provided care in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005). Staff understood the need to obtain consent before delivering care.

Caring

Good

Updated 3 October 2018

The service was caring. Relatives told us staff were caring. Staff supported people in a caring manner.

The service had a keyworking system. Relatives were kept informed about their family member�s wellbeing.

Staff explained how they got to know people and developed caring relationships with them. People�s privacy, dignity and independence was promoted.

The provider had an equality and diversity policy and staff knew how to deliver an equitable service.

Responsive

Good

Updated 3 October 2018

The service was responsive. Staff understood how to deliver a personalised care service. Care records were personalised and included people�s preferences.

A variety of activities were offered to maintain people�s well-being. People�s accessible communication needs were met.

The provider had a system to handle complaints and to record compliments in order to make improvements to the service.

Well-led

Good

Updated 3 October 2018

The service was well led. There was a registered manager at the service. Relatives and staff spoke positively about the management of the service.

The provider had a system to obtain feedback from people and relatives about the quality of the service delivered.

People and staff had regular meetings so their views could be heard about the quality of the service.

The provider had several quality audit systems in place to identify areas for improvement. The service worked jointly with other agencies to share examples of good practice.