You are here

Archived: Dimensions 36 Harvey Road Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 3 June 2017

This was an unannounced inspection and took place on 21 and 24 April 2017.

The home provides care and accommodation for up to five people with learning disabilities. It is located in the Whitton area.

At the time of our inspection the home 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

At the last inspection in January 2015 the home met all the key questions and was rated good in each with an overall good rating.

Due to people using the service having limited verbal communication relatives generally spoke on their behalf. Relatives said that people enjoyed living at Harvey Road and the way that staff treated and supported them. People were enabled to choose their own activities, when they wished to do them and there was a variety of home and community based activities available. People were safe living at the home and using amenities within the local community. When we visited there was a welcoming, warm, and friendly atmosphere with people using the service coming from and going to activities. There was positive interaction between people using the service and staff throughout our visit.

The records were accessible, up to date and covered all aspects of the care and support people received. This included their choices, activities and safety. People’s care plans were complete and the information contained was regularly reviewed. This enabled staff to perform their duties efficiently and professionally. Where possible people and their relatives were encouraged to discuss health needs with staff and had access to GP’s and other community based health professionals, as required. Staff supported people to choose healthy meal options and maintain balanced diets whilst meeting their likes, dislikes and preferences. This enabled them to be protected from nutrition and hydration associated risks. Relatives told us and our observations showed that people liked the choice and quality of their meals.

People knew the staff that supported them well and the staff were very familiar with people, their likes, dislikes and preferences. They were well supported and enjoyed the way staff delivered their care. Skilled staff provided care and support in a professional, friendly way that focussed on people as individuals. The staff were well trained and accessible to people using the service. Staff said they liked working at the home and had received good training and support from the manager.

Relatives said the management team was approachable, responsive and listened to them. The quality of the service provided was consistently monitored and assessed.

Inspection areas



Updated 3 June 2017

The service was safe.

People and their relatives told us that they felt the service was safe. There were effective safeguarding procedures that staff used, understood and risks to people were assessed.

The staff recruitment procedure was thorough.

There was evidence the home had improved its practice by learning from incidents that had previously occurred and there were enough staff to meet people�s needs.

People�s medicine was safely administered; with all records completed and up to date. Medicine was regularly audited, safely stored and disposed of.



Updated 3 June 2017

The service was effective.

Staff were well trained.

People�s needs were assessed and agreed with them.

People�s food and fluid intake and diets were monitored within their care plans and people had access to community based health services.

The service had Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) policies and procedures. Training was provided for staff and people underwent mental capacity assessments and �best interests� meetings were arranged as required.



Updated 3 June 2017

The service was caring.

Relatives said that people using the service were valued, respected and they were involved in planning and decision making about the care and support provided. People�s preferences for the way in which they wished to be supported were clearly recorded.

Staff provided good support, care and encouragement. They listened to, acknowledged and acted upon people�s opinions, preferences and choices. People�s privacy and dignity was also respected and promoted by staff. Care was centred on people�s individual needs. Staff knew people�s background, interests and personal preferences well and understood their cultural needs.



Updated 3 June 2017

The service was responsive.

People chose and joined in with a range of recreational and work activities at home and within the local community. Their care plans identified the support they needed to be involved in their chosen activities and daily notes confirmed they had taken part.

The home had a complaints procedure and system and people said that any concerns raised were discussed and addressed as a matter of urgency.



Updated 3 June 2017

The service was well-led.

The service had a positive and enabling culture at all staff levels of seniority. The manager enabled people to make decisions and staff to take lead responsibility for specific areas of the running of the service.

Staff said they were well supported by the manager.

The quality assurance, feedback and recording systems covered all aspects of the service constantly monitoring standards and driving improvement.