Archived: Dimensions 9-11 Fraser Drive

This is a summary of what we found-

Is the service safe?

People spoken with told us staff treated them with dignity and respect and they felt "safe" and did not have any worries or concerns.

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

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

The home had proper policies and procedures in relation the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards DoLS.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their support plans where they were able. We found support plans were person centred, promoted people's independence and reflected their personal preferences.

Is the service caring?

People spoken with told us they were satisfied with the support they had received and made positive comments about the staff. People told us they were happy living at the service; they felt 'safe' and did not have any concerns or worries. Their comments included: 'I have two key workers and we sort things out between us', 'the staff are alright, they help me' and 'the staff aren't nasty they are really nice'. One person described how they were supported with their personal care. They would turn on the shower and the staff would check the water was not too hot for them.

During the inspection we saw people participating in activities in both houses. This told us the service promoted people's wellbeing by taking into account of their needs including activities. These activities included the following: dancing, singing, colouring and completing jigsaws. On the day of the inspection two people went to a woodcraft day centre and two people went out with their outreach worker. People also described how staff supported them to go out for walks and out for meals.

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. People told us if they had any concerns they would tell someone.

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 to review the performance of the service. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

We found that some people who used the services had complex needs. In order to gain their experiences, we observed how staff interacted with them. We saw that all staff treated people with respect and had professional, positive relationships with them.

People we spoke with told us that they were treated with respect and that they were very satisfied with the support they had received. Their comments included: 'it's a very good service, I like living here' and 'my keyworker is really good'.

Staff were clear about what their roles and responsibilities were and what action they would take if they saw or suspected any abuse.

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

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

The relative and advocate we spoke with were satisfied with the quality of care their relative or the person they represented had received. Their comments included: "I have no concerns about the service, it is very good." "They match staff with people they support really well."

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.

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. One person told us that if they had any concerns they would speak to staff. The advocate we spoke with had no concerns but felt confident that if they had a concern it would be handled appropriately.