Archived: Dimensions 50 Fordbridge Road

Updated 6 September 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

We visited the home on 13 July 2016 and it was an unannounced inspection. The inspection was conducted by one inspector so that we did not cause any unnecessary anxiety to people who lived there.

We reviewed the Provider Information Record (PIR) and previous inspection reports before the inspection. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the home, what the home does well and improvements they plan to make.

Before the inspection we gathered information about the home by contacting the local authority safeguarding and quality assurance team. The local authority and safeguarding team did not identify any concerns about the home. We also reviewed records we held which included notifications, complaints and any safeguarding concerns. A notification is information about important events which the home is required to send us by law.

We spoke to four people living at the home, two staff and the provider’s assistant locality manager. We observed care and support in communal areas; looked at two bedrooms with the agreement of the relevant people. We looked at three care records, risk assessments, medicines administration records, accident and incident records, minutes of meetings, one staff record, complaints records, policies and procedures and external and internal audits.

We last inspected the home on 9 January 2014 where no concerns were identified.

Updated 6 September 2016

This was an unannounced inspection that took place on 13 July 2016.

Dimensions 50 Fordbridge Road is a care home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to eight people, who are living with a learning disability and have complex needs such as epilepsy and cerebral palsy. At the time of our inspection there were five people living there. People living at the home had various degrees of communication skills; they were unable to take part in a full discussion with us but we were able to engage with them and discuss their view points about the home. The home is a detached house with communal lounge, dining room, kitchen and bathroom facilities which people used. The accommodation is provided over two floors that were accessible by stairs and a lift. There was also a spacious and secure garden for people to use.

We had been informed by the provider that the home was closing down. Arrangements were beginning to be put in place for people for the smooth transition of moving out of the home. People and their relatives were involved in these decisions and their preferences and choices were respected. We conducted the inspection to review people’s care and support needs during this transitional period.

The home did not have a registered manager in place. ‘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 provider had arranged temporary management coverage at the home. We have been informed the provider has submitted an application to be registered as manager with Care Quality Commission (CQC).

People and relative told us they were safe at the home. Staff had a good understanding about the signs of abuse and were aware of what to do if they suspected abuse was taking place. There were systems and processes in place to protect people from harm.

There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed who had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. Recruitment practices were safe and relevant checks had been completed before staff started work.

Medicines were managed, stored and disposed of safely. Any changes to people’s medicines were prescribed by the person’s GP and administered appropriately.

Fire safety arrangements and risk assessments for the environment were in place to help keep people safe. The service had a contingency plan that identified how the home would function in the event of an unforeseeable emergency such as fire, adverse weather conditions, flooding or power cuts.

Staff were up to date with current guidance to support people to make decisions. Staff had a clear understanding of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) as well as their responsibilities in respect of this.

The provider ensured staff had the skills and experience which were necessary to carry out their role. Staff had received appropriate support that promoted their development. The staff team were knowledgeable about people’s care needs. People told us they felt supported by staff.

People had enough to eat and drink and there were arrangements in place to identify and support people who were nutritionally at risk. People were supported to have access to healthcare services and healthcare professionals were involved in the regular monitoring of their well-being. The provider worked effectively with healthcare professionals and was pro-active in referring people for assessment or treatment.

Staff treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. People’s preferences, likes and dislikes had been taken into consideration and support was provided in accordance with people’s wishes. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and promoted when personal care was undertaken.

People’s needs were assessed when they entered the home and on a continuous basis to reflect changes in their needs. Staff understood the importance of promoting independence and choice. People were able to personalise their room with their own furniture and personal items so that they were surrounded by things that were familiar to them. People had the right to refuse care and support and this information was recorded in their care plans.

People were encouraged to voice their concerns or complaints about the service and there were different ways for their voice to be heard. Suggestions, concerns and complaints were used as an opportunity to learn and improve the service people received.

People had access to activities that were important and relevant to them. There were a range of activities available within the home and outside.

People’s care and welfare was monitored regularly to ensure their needs were met. The provider had systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of the care provided.

People told us the staff were friendly and management were always approachable. Staff were encouraged to contribute to the improvement of the home. Staff told us they would report any concerns to their manager and felt supported by the management.