Archived: Dimensions 169 Gleadless Common/15 Gleadless View

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 observed staff giving care and support to people. They were respectful and treated people in a caring and supportive way. Care was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Staff spoken with were clear about what their roles and responsibilities were and the action they would take if they saw or suspected any abuse. We saw the service had a process in place to respond to and to record safeguarding concerns. We found the service had online access to a copy of the local safeguarding protocols and followed them to safeguard people from harm.

We found robust arrangements in place to audit people's finance records to safeguard people using the service from financial abuse.

The service had proper policies and procedures in relation the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Is the service effective?

We looked at three people's support plans. The plans contained a range of information that covered all aspects of health and personal care. A range of risk assessments had been completed for each person. Support plans included details of people's life histories, personal preferences, community connections and relationships. We found support plans were person centred, promoted people's independence and reflected their personal preferences.

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

Is the service caring?

Throughout our inspection the atmosphere within the service was calm, supportive and friendly. People participated in activities during the day. This told us the service promoted people's wellbeing by taking into account of their needs including activities.

Staff spoken with told us about their key worker role, that support was based around individual needs and preferences so choice was promoted and respected. Staff described how people used facial expression, body language and verbal noises to communicate their choice. They also described how people communicated they were in pain. This told us staff knew people well and how to care for them.

Is the service responsive?

We found that support plans contained clear information about the type of decisions people were able to make and how best to support people to make these decisions. Staff knew people and their individual ways of communicating and were aware that some people needed more time and support to make decisions.

A pictorial complaints procedure was available for people to look at in their records.

Is the service well-led?

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

Staff were provided with specialised training to meet the needs of people they supported. This meant that people were being supported by suitably trained staff.

Regular medication observation assessments of staff competency were undertaken to ensure staff were supporting people safely with their medicines.

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

Staff told us that they really enjoyed working at the service. One staff member commented: 'I want to make sure people are safe, happy and enjoying life to their fullest'.

When we inspected the service in January 2013 we ask the service to complete an action plan regarding the management of medicines. On this inspection a pharmacist inspector inspected the service and found that people were protected against the risks associated with the unsafe use and management of medicines.

Staff had received training but we saw that some staff had not received regular supervisions.

When we inspected the service in January 2013 we ask the service to complete an action plan regarding people's records. On this inspection we found that the provider was now meeting this standard.

In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.

We found that the service provided a range of activities within and outside of the home to meet people's differing levels of need. We saw that support plans were in place for each identified area of need. Each plan was comprehensive and clearly detailed how people liked to be supported.

Our observation of the administration of medication and our check of medication records identified a number of issues. We found that people living at the service were not protected against the risks associated with the unsafe management of medication. The service was non compliant with this outcome area.

Our observations on the day of our inspection and conversations with staff demonstrated that there were enough staff to meet people's needs.

We saw that there were appropriate systems to gather, record and evaluate the quality and safety of care provided.

We identified issues relating to some care records at Gleadless Common and Gleadless View. We were concerned that the lack of up to date information within these records meant that people were not protected against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care and treatment. The service was non compliant with this outcome area.