Archived: Dimensions 209-211 Burncross Road

We considered all the evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions; is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

During the inspection we visited the service's two houses. We found people had complex needs. From our observations we did not identify any concerns regarding safeguarding of people living at the service. There was information regarding safeguarding in the visitors book in each house and this included an easy read guide on how to raise concerns.

We found people were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines.

Staff told us they had an opportunity to read people's care plans and valued the information in them. Care was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

We found arrangements were in place to audit people's financial transactions to safeguard people using the service from financial abuse.

Staff had received training in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards DoLS.

Is the service effective?

We spoke with four relatives who were visiting two people living at the service. They told us they were kept fully involved and informed in the care of their family member.

We looked at three people's support plans. We found support plans were person centred, promoted people's independence and reflected their personal preferences.

Support plans showed evidence that people had a health action plan and attended a range of health care appointments. Some people were being supported on an ongoing basis from external healthcare professionals.

Is the service caring?

Relatives spoken with were very satisfied with the quality of care their family member had received. They also made positive comments about the staff working at the service. Their comments included: 'marvellous' and 'the staff treat people with care and compassion'.

During the inspection we saw people being supported to go on activities. This told us the service promoted people's wellbeing by taking into account their needs, including activities. These activities included the following: going for a walk, going to the library, going out for lunch and going to a day centre to attend a music session.

Is the service responsive?

Staff spoken with told us support was based around individual needs and preferences so choice was promoted and respected. They also told us how they adapted their communication style to meet the needs of people they supported.

A pictorial complaints procedure was available for people to look at in each house.

Is the service well-led?

Quality monitoring systems were in place to make sure managers and staff learned from audit checks. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.

The service held regular house meetings, relatives meetings and staff meetings to review the performance of the service. This helped to ensure people received a good quality service at all times.

All the staff we spoke with told us that they had received safeguarding training. Staff were clear about what their roles and responsibilities were and what action they would take if they saw or suspected any abuse.

Staff told us that they had an opportunity to read people's care plans and valued the information in them. Care was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

We found that the service had processes in place to assess and monitor the quality of service provision.

We spoke with three relatives by telephone after the inspection and they told us that their relatives were always treated respectfully and that they were very happy with the quality of support their relative had received. Their comments included: 'They treat him with respect.' 'I think the key workers for my son are brilliant.'

We found that staff were clear about what their roles and responsibilities were and what action they would take if they saw or suspected any abuse. All the relatives we spoke with told us that they felt that their relative was in a safe place.

Two relatives we spoke with told us that there had been a high level of bank and agency staff working at the service last year but they felt that this was no longer an issue. We found that the service had enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs.

We saw that the service had provided people with information about how to complain. Two of the relatives we spoke with told us that they regularly attended the relative's meetings where they could raise any concerns they may have.