Archived: Dimensions The Swallows 183-189 Hanworth Road

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

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 June 2015 the home met all the key questions and was rated good in each with an overall good rating.

People felt happy living at the home and with the way staff helped them to enjoy their lives. There were activities they chose, the house felt safe and the staff supported people very well. During our visit there was a welcoming, friendly atmosphere and people enjoyed doing activities and interacting with each other and staff. The activities were varied and took place at home and in the community.

The records were kept up to date, covered all aspects of the care and support people received, their choices and activities. People’s care plans contained clearly recorded, fully completed, and regularly reviewed information. This enabled staff to perform their duties professionally. People were encouraged to discuss their health needs with staff and had access to GP’s and other community based health professionals, if they were required. People were protected from nutrition and hydration associated risks with balanced diets that also met their likes, dislikes and preferences. They said they were happy with the choice and quality of meals provided.

People knew the staff that supported them and the staff knew them and their likes and dislikes. They were well supported and they liked the way their care was delivered. Staff worked well as a team. They had appropriate skills and provided care and support in a professional, friendly and supportive way that was focussed on the individual. The staff were well trained and made themselves accessible to people and their relatives. Staff said the organisation was a good one to work for and they enjoyed their work at the home. They had access to good training, support and there were opportunities for career advancement.

People said the management team and organisation were approachable, responsive, encouraged feedback from people and consistently monitored and assessed the quality of the service provided.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We saw that staff treated people with dignity and respect during our visit and the home had a light, friendly and inclusive atmosphere. People said they enjoyed living at the home, the staff were very supportive and they felt safe living there. One person said "The staff are very good and the home more than meets my needs". We saw that the safeguarding procedures in place were robust, staff had received suitable training in them, knew how to operate them and they understood how to safeguard people individually and as a group. Details of areas or circumstances of concern specific to individual people were also recorded in the sample of 3 care plans we looked at.

The organisation had systems that ensured the manager and staff learnt from accidents and incidents, listened to people's concerns, complaints, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduced risks to people and helped the service to improve.

The home had policies and procedures that adhered to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Training was provided for relevant staff to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. People living at the home were being re-assessed under (DoLS). This meant that people and their rights were safeguarded.

We walked around the building, garden and saw that the home was safe, clean and hygienic with well-maintained equipment that was regularly serviced. This meant people were not put at unnecessary risk.

People's individual care and support needs were taken into account by the manager when making decisions regarding the required staff numbers, qualifications, skills and experience. This was reflected in the staff rota and ensured that people's needs were met.

No staff were currently subject to disciplinary action and policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.

Is the service effective?

There was an advocacy service available should people require it. This meant that people could access additional support if it was required. One person also represented south west London as a delegate at forums held by the organisation to get the views of people who use the service.

The home assessed people's health and care support needs with them and they were supported to contribute as much as they wished to their care plans. One person said "I'm fully involved in my support planning". Any specialist care and support required such as diet, mobility or equipment needs were identified in people's person centred support plans. A sample of the support plans we saw had been signed identifying that people had been involved in producing them.

The layout of the service enabled people to move around freely, safely and there was suitable equipment to support them to achieve this.

The visiting policy and visitors' book demonstrated that people were able to see their visitors in private and that visiting times were flexible.

Is the service caring?

We saw that people were supported by kind, professional and supportive staff. The staff were patient and encouraged people to give their opinions. People said, "I don't think there is anything to improve on in this home' and "I do a lot of things around the house and enjoy it".

People and their relatives completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were addressed by the manager and organisation.

We saw in 3 support plans that people's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and that care and support had been provided in accordance with this information.

Is the service responsive?

During our visit people told us about the various activities they were engaged in. They participated in these either individually or as a group depending on the nature of the activities and their interest. The home had access to transport, that enabled people to be involved in activities within their local community and further afield.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. We looked at how complaints were investigated and saw that they were investigated properly and action was taken if necessary.

Is the service well-led?

We saw that the manager and staff listened to people's needs, opinions and acted upon them. The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received linked support. This was demonstrated by the relationship the home had with community based health services.

Appropriate notifications were made to the Care Quality Commission.

They decided what activities they wanted to do and the type of care and support they received and when and how it was provided. "I normally work at the charity shop". "Sometimes I do some cooking, I like to do that".

They told us that they liked the staff whom treated them well. They did not tell us about the support that staff got from the manager and organisation.

They also told us they were asked what they thought about the home and how it was run. One person said "I haven't planned anything for the weekend".

They were also aware of the complaints procedure but said they did not need to use it and any problems were sorted out by the staff and manager.

We saw that people were treated with dignity and respect during our visit. They were supported to make decisions and their opinions sought in a relaxed, unhurried, friendly and comfortable way.

The records we saw were up to date, well kept and easy to follow.

The home was clean, tidy, well maintained and fit for purpose.

There was a complaints policy and procedure that was easy for people to understand and access.

There were suitable supervision arrangements that enabled staff to give good quality, competent, care and support.