• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Dimensions 11 Kilford Court

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

11 Kilford Court, Botley, Southampton, Hampshire, SO30 2TN (01489) 788217

Provided and run by:
Dimensions (UK) Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

Latest inspection summary

On this page

Background to this inspection

Updated 28 September 2019

The inspection

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

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type

Kilford Court is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Whilst the service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission, they were no longer providing the day to day management of the service. A new manager had been appointed but had only been in post for three weeks when we inspected. Registered managers are, along with the provider, legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

The inspection was unannounced.

What we did

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections.

During the inspection we spoke with two people who used the service and a further three peoples relatives or advocate. We spoke with the manager, assistant locality manager, and four support workers. We reviewed the care records of two people in detail, but also viewed specific information contained with a further three peoples support plans. We also looked at the records for two staff that had been recruited since our last inspection and other records relating to the management of the service such as medicines administration records, audits and staff rotas.

Following the inspection, we received feedback from two health and social care professionals.

Overall inspection

Requires improvement

Updated 28 September 2019

About the service: Kilford Court is a care home without nursing. Kilford Court provides care for up to six adults living with a range of learning difficulties, mental health needs or living with autism. At the time of our inspection there were six people living at the home, some of whom also lived with physical disabilities. The service is in a residential area and has an accessible garden.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found:

Some of the risks relating to people needs and the environment had not been effectively managed. Medicines were not being managed safely or in line with best practice frameworks. There were not always sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people’s needs. The home was clean. There were systems in place to learn from when things go wrong.

The systems in place had not been fully effective at improving the quality and safety of the service. Overall staff told us they had confidence in the way the service was managed, and they were clear about their role and responsibilities. There were some systems in place to actively seek the engagement and involvement of people and staff in developing the service and driving improvements. The leadership team were transparent and collaborative and demonstrated a commitment to improve the service. The manager took on board the feedback from our inspection and took immediate action to resolve the shortfalls identified.

Staff, including agency staff, demonstrated a good understanding of the individual personalities of the people they supported and were able to talk about people’s preferred routines. The support provided did not always empower people to have as much control and independence as possible. The service had taken steps to provide information to people in ways which they understood. Systems were in place to investigate and respond to complaints or concerns. End of life care plans were to be developed as part of the planned person-centred reviews of people’s care and support.

Staff and management had worked collaboratively with a number of mental health professionals to better understand and improve the support being provided to effectively meet people’s needs. There was evidence that capacity to consent to care and support was considered as part of the care planning process. However, this had not always been well documented. People continued to be supported to have enough to eat and drink and their dietary needs were met. The premises were suitable for people’s needs, but many of the fixtures or fittings were tired or worn and would benefit from being updated or replaced. A suitable training programme was in place.

Overall, people were supported by staff who were kind and caring and whom understood how to protect their dignity. However, some of the interactions we saw were neutral and could have been more person centred.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was ‘Good’ (published 17 March 2017).

Why we inspected

Follow up

We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk