You are here

Dimensions Bracknell Domiciliary Care Office Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 22 November 2017

This inspection took place on 17 and 18 October 2017 and was announced. We gave the registered manager 48 hours' notice because the location provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to make sure someone would be in the office. This was the first inspection of the location since it was added to the provider's registration on 9 December 2016.

Dimensions Bracknell Domiciliary Care Office is a domiciliary care service providing personal care to people in their own homes. The people they support have learning disabilities and/or autistic spectrum disorder.

At the time of our inspection the service was supporting a total of 243 people. Of those, 64 people were supported with personal care needs. Fifteen people were living in their own flats or houses. The remaining 49 people were living in supported living settings in 15 different houses. In supported living settings people’s care and housing are provided under separate contract agreements. Not everyone using Dimensions Bracknell Domiciliary Care Office received a regulated activity. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’, help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. In addition, CQC does not regulate any premises used for supported living, this inspection only looked at people’s personal care and support.

The service had a registered manager as required. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 registered manager was present and assisted us during the inspection.

We have recommended that the provider review their duty of candour policy to ensure it provides accurate information to staff. We have also recommended that future ongoing staff training be updated in line with the latest best practice guidelines for social care staff.

People were protected from the risks of abuse. Some staff recruitment issues were identified, but were dealt with by the registered manager before the end of the inspection. People and their relatives confirmed people were encouraged and supported to maintain and increase their independence.

People were treated with care and kindness. They were consulted about their support and could change how things were done if they wanted to. People were treated with respect and their dignity was upheld. This was confirmed by people and the relatives who gave us their views.

People received care and support that was personalised to meet their individual needs. People were supported to maintain relationships with those important to them. The service provided access to local events to enhance social activities. This meant people had access to activities that took into account their individual interests and links with different communities.

People received effective care and support from staff who knew them well and were well trained. They told us staff had the training and skills they needed when providing their care and support. People received effective health care and support. Medicines were stored and handled correctly and safely.

People mostly knew how to complain and knew the process to follow if they had concerns. People's rights to make their own decisions were protected. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Where people were potentially being deprived of their liberty, the service had made the relevant commissioning authorities aware. This was so that commissioners could make applications to the Court of Protection for the appropriate authorisations.

People's right to confidentiality was protected and they received suppor

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 22 November 2017

The service was safe. Staff had a good understanding of how to keep people safe and their responsibilities for reporting accidents, incidents or concerns.

Risks to people’s personal safety had been assessed and plans were in place to minimise those risks. Recruitment processes were in place to make sure, as far as possible, that people were protected from staff being employed who were not suitable.

There were sufficient numbers of staff and medicines were handled correctly.

Effective

Good

Updated 22 November 2017

The service was effective. People benefitted from a staff team that was well trained. Staff had the skills and support needed to deliver care and support to a good standard.

Staff promoted people's rights to consent to their care and their rights to make their own decisions. The registered manager had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Where people were potentially being deprived of their liberty, the registered manager had contacted their funding authorities so that appropriate applications could be made to the Court of Protection.

People were supported to eat and drink enough and staff made sure actions were taken to ensure their health needs were met.

Caring

Good

Updated 22 November 2017

The service was caring. People benefitted from a staff team that was caring and respectful.

People received individualised care from staff who were compassionate and understanding of their known wishes and preferences.

People's right to confidentiality was protected. People's dignity and privacy were respected and they were encouraged to live as full a life as possible, maintaining their independence where they could.

Responsive

Good

Updated 22 November 2017

The service was responsive. People received care and support that was personalised to meet their individual needs.

The service provided was responsive in recognising and adapting to people's changing needs.

People spoke to care staff if they had any concerns and felt they responded well to any concerns raised.

Well-led

Good

Updated 22 November 2017

The service was well led. People told us they would recommend the service to another person.

Staff were happy working at the service and we saw there was a good team spirit. They felt supported by the registered manager and locality managers and thought the training and support they received helped them to do their job well.

Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the quality of service being delivered and the running of the service.