You are here

Archived: Dimensions 22 Mill Croft Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 14 August 2015

This unannounced inspection took place on 21July 2015. At the last inspection on 10 July 2013, the registered provider was compliant with all the regulations we assessed.

Dimensions 22 Mill Croft is a purpose built single storey home for up to six people with a learning disability, although only four people are resident there at present. It is situated in a residential setting and close to local facilities. The home has six single bedrooms, a bathroom, a kitchen, a laundry and a large lounge/dining room. However, one of the bedrooms has been made into a sensory room and another into a store room. There is a garden at the rear of the property and car parking at the front.

The service had a registered manager in post. 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.

We found people lived in a safe environment. Staff completed risk assessments to ensure there was guidance in how to minimise the risks posed to people from their environment and from daily living tasks. Equipment used in the service was checked and maintained.

Staff had received training in how to safeguard people from the risk of abuse or harm. There were policies and procedures to guide them in what to do if they witnessed abuse or they had any concerns about poor practice.

We found there were sufficient staff employed in the service to meet people’s current needs. Staff had been recruited safely and received an induction, training and on-going supervision to ensure they were confident when supporting the people who used the service.

We found people had their health care needs met and had access to a range of professionals in the community. People received their medicines as prescribed, which helped to maintain their health.

Staff supported people to make choices. We found when people had been assessed as lacking capacity to make their own decisions, staff had worked within best practice and current legislation. There was a bath but no shower, which could potentially limit people’s choices. This was mentioned to the registered manager to address in future redecoration and refurbishment plans.

We observed people enjoyed their meals and were supported appropriately by staff when required.

We found people were treated with dignity and respect and supported to be as independent as possible. Their needs were assessed and care was provided in a person-centred way. The staff approach was observed as sensitive, caring and friendly. People took part in activities within the house and accessed external facilities to help them take part in community life.

We found there was a system to monitor the quality of service provided to people who used the service. This included analysing accidents and incidents so learning could take place to prevent reoccurrence. Checks were carried out by senior managers so they could assure themselves of the quality of care delivered to people.

We found the environment was clean and tidy and suitable for people’s needs. Some exposed woodchip in the kitchen would make kitchen surfaces and cupboards difficult to keep clean and some areas of the garden needed tidying. This was mentioned to the registered manager to raise with maintenance personnel.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 14 August 2015

The service was safe.

Staff had policies and procedures to guide them in how to safeguard people from abuse and harm. They knew the actions to take and who to contact if they became aware of abuse or poor practice. There were risk assessments in place to help staff minimise risks to people and aid their independence.

Staff were recruited in a safe way and there were sufficient staff on duty at all times to meet people’s assessed needs.

People received their medicines as prescribed.

Effective

Good

Updated 14 August 2015

The service was effective.

People’s health care needs were met. They had access to a range of health care professionals in the community and had annual health checks by their GPs.

People’s nutritional needs were met. Staff prepared a varied diet and supported people to eat meals of their choice and preference. Any concerns about people’s nutritional intake were referred to a dietician.

Staff supported people to make choices about aspects of their lives. When people were assessed as not having capacity, best interest meetings were held to discuss options. Any restrictions on people’s lives were carried out in line with best practice and in a ‘least restrictive’ way.

Caring

Good

Updated 14 August 2015

The service was caring.

Staff demonstrated a positive and caring approach in their interactions with people who used the service. They provided information and explanations prior to completing care tasks with them and involved people in discussions.

People were treated with dignity and respect and enabled to be as independent as possible.

Responsive

Good

Updated 14 August 2015

The service was responsive.

People received care that was person-centred and tailored to their individual needs and preferences.

People had access to activities and external facilities to help them take part in family and community life.

There was a complaints process in place and people felt able to raise concerns. The complaints process was written in easy read format to help people understand how to make a complaint.

Well-led

Good

Updated 14 August 2015

The service was well-led.

There was an open and supportive culture within the organisation and the staff team. Relatives of people who used the service felt able to express their views.

There was a system in place to monitor and improve the service provided to people and to learn from incidents that affected their welfare.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibilities and accountabilities.