• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Dimensions 1a and 1b Maurice Lee Avenue

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

1a Maurice Lee Avenue, Telford, Shropshire, TF2 6HE (01952) 612311

Provided and run by:
Dimensions (UK) Limited

All Inspections

9 January 2017

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection took place on 9 January 2017. At our last inspection in July 2015 the provider was rated as requires improvement. Dimensions provides accommodation and personal care for up to 6 people who may have a learning disability.

There was a registered manager in place. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Relatives we spoke to told us they thought their family member was safe. Staff understood their responsibilities in keeping people safe and knew how to report any suspected abuse and felt confident they would be listened to. Staff were aware of the risks to people’s health and safety and knew the measures in place to keep people safe. We saw there were sufficient staff to keep people safe. The provider had a safe recruitment system which meant staff were suitable to work with vulnerable people. There was a system in place to ensure people got their medicines as prescribed.

Relatives told us they thought staff were trained to meet the needs of the people who lived at the service. Staff told us they received training which meant they could provide effective care for the people they supported. Staff sought consent from people before providing any care. People’s rights were protected because staff and the registered manager had applied the principles of the Mental Capacity Act. People had choices about their food and had sufficient to eat and drink to maintain their health. Relatives told us and we saw people had access to healthcare professionals when their needs changed.

We saw people were supported by kind and considerate staff. We saw people were happy and comfortable with staff. Staff told us how they offered people choices in their daily lives. People were encouraged to maintain their independence and were supported by staff in a dignified way.

Relatives told us, and we saw people were supported by staff who knew their individual preferences which meant the care they received was responsive to their individual needs. People had access to activities both in the service and in the community. The provider had a system in place which meant should they receive any complaints they would be listened to and investigated.

We saw people appeared happy living at the service. Relatives and staff told us the service was well led. Staff felt supported by the management and told us the culture was open and transparent. We saw there was system in place which monitored the quality of the care people received. Where areas of concern were identified, action was taken to ensure people received the care they needed.

13 October 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 13 October 2015 and was unannounced. At the last inspection in October 2013 the provider was meeting all of the requirements that we looked at.

Dimensions 1a and 1b Maurice Lee Avenue provides accommodation and personal care for six people with a learning disability who live in two separate houses that are registered as one service. At the time of the inspection visit there were three people living in 1A Maurice Lee Avenue and three people living in 1B Maurice Lee Avenue. There was a registered manager in post who also managed two other residential registered services. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Concerns were raised about the incompatibility of people who shared one home. The registered manager told us about the action the provider was taking to address these concerns to help safeguard people. People were supported by enough staff to meet their needs. However, concerns were shared by staff about the high use of agency staff in addition to the lack of support and visibility of the registered manager and not feeling valued by the provider. Some staff did not feel the service was consistently well-led or that the culture was open and transparent.

Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding and the different types of abuse and were confident in reporting any concerns and knew the correct process to follow. The provider had taken action against staff for failing to follow procedures in relation to reporting potential abuse. Risks to people were identified and plans were in place to help safeguard them. People’s medicines were managed safely. We saw that most medicines were stored correctly in locked cabinets and there was a clear process for recording and auditing medicines so that they could all be accounted for.

People received care and support from staff that were trained. Staff asked people for their permission to perform care tasks and provided care and support that protected their freedom and promoted their rights. People were offered the food and drink they required, and were supported to shop and help prepare their meals wherever possible. People were supported to maintain good health and were referred to health professionals when required.

People were supported by staff that demonstrated a kind and caring approach and supported them at their own pace. People looked relaxed and comfortable with staff that had developed positive and caring working relationships with them. People’s privacy, dignity and independence was promoted and staff were able to share good examples of their practice.

People had care records that were personalised to their particular needs. However, some information was not readily accessible or up to date. People were able to attend their care reviews along with family members and other professionals involved in their care. The provider had a complaints policy in place and staff knew how to make a complaint on behalf of people they supported.

There were audits in place as part of a quality assurance programme to monitor the service people received. The registered manager was aware of the strengths of the service and the areas requiring improvement.

29 October 2013

During a routine inspection

When we visited Maurice Lee Avenue we were shown around the two buildings where six people had lived together for over twenty years. We saw that everywhere was clean and tidy. Everyone had their own rooms with their choice of furnishings. The five people we met were not able to talk to us so we spent time with them and the staff who provided their support.

We observed staff understood what the people wanted even though they had little verbal communication skills. Some people were able to say what they wanted and others used objects of reference or visual prompts which helped them to make choices about their daily living activities.

Staff told us they always considered how people's lives could be improved and how friendships could be supported. We were told activities were arranged with other service to ensure people could experience new things and meet their friends. They demonstrated to us that they understood their responsibilities and how to ensure the people were kept safe and well supported. We saw that everyone was treated with dignity and respect.

25 October 2012

During a routine inspection

The five people we met were unable to share their views and experiences with us. Therefore we spent time observing routines and interactions. We spoke with the seven staff who were working at the home on the day of our inspection.

People who received a service were happy and relaxed. We saw them making choices and being encouraged to be as independent as they were able.

Likes, dislikes, preferences and goals were considered in relation to the support that people received. Everyone was seen to be treated with dignity and respect.

We saw how staff met people's care and support needs in ways that they preferred and we saw that detailed records gave staff the information that they required to do this.

People were protected because staff were confident to recognise and report abuse.

People were supported by a knowledgeable and well trained staff team who knew their care and support needs well. Staff received a range of training opportunities specifically designed to meet the needs of the people who received a service.

The home ensured that people's views were considered and listened to. Staff responded to verbal and non verbal communication methods to identify and respond to people's needs and wishes.

The organisation had comprehensive quality monitoring tools in place to ensure that they maintained good quality care.