You are here

Archived: Dimensions 47 Chichester Court Good


Inspection carried out on 15 & 17 September 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 15 September 2015 and was unannounced. We returned to the home on 17 September to complete our inspection.

47 Chichester Court is a care home registered for four people with a learning disability situated in Stanmore. At the time of our inspection there were two vacancies at the home. The people who used the service had significant support needs because of their learning disabilities such as communication impairments and behaviours considered to be challenging.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

A family member told us that they felt that people who lived at the home were very safe. We saw that people were comfortable and familiar with the staff supporting them.

People who lived at the home were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff members had received training in safeguarding, and were able to demonstrate their understanding of what this meant for the people they were supporting. They were also knowledgeable about their role in ensuring that people were safe and that concerns were reported appropriately.

Medicines were well managed. People’s medicines were managed and given to them appropriately and records of medicines were well maintained.

We saw that staff at the service supported people in a caring and respectful way, and responded promptly to meet their needs and requests. There were enough staff members on duty to meet the needs of the people using the service.

Staff received regular relevant training and were knowledgeable about their roles and responsibilities and the needs of the people whom they supported. Appropriate checks took place as part of the recruitment process to ensure that staff were suitable for the work that they would be undertaking. All staff members received regular supervision from a manager, and those whom we spoke with told us that they felt well supported.

The home was meeting the requirements of The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Information about capacity was included in people’s care plans. Applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations had been made to the relevant local authority to ensure that people who were unable to make decisions were not inappropriately restricted. Staff members had received training in MCA and DoLS, and those we spoke with were able to describe their roles and responsibilities in relation to supporting people who lacked capacity to make decisions.

People’s nutritional needs were well met. Meals provided were varied and met guidance provided in people’s care plans. Alternatives were offered where required, and drinks and snacks were offered to people throughout the day.

Care plans and risk assessments were person centred and provided detailed guidance for staff around meeting people’s needs.

A range of activities for people to participate in throughout the week were provided. Staff members supported people to participate in these activities. People’s cultural and religious needs were supported by the service and detailed information about these was contained in people’s care plans.

The service had a complaints procedure. A family member told us that they knew how to make a complaint, and that they were confident that complaints would be managed effectively.

The care documentation that we saw showed that people’s health needs were regularly reviewed. Staff liaised with health professionals to ensure that people received the support that they needed.

We saw that there were systems in place to review and monitor the quality of the service, and action plans had been put in place and addressed where there were concerns. Policies and procedures were up to date and reflected good practice guidance.

Family members of people who lived at the home and staff spoke positively about the management of the home.