You are here

Archived: Dimensions 22 Mill Croft Good

Reports


Inspection carried out on 21 July 2015

During a routine inspection

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 carried out on 10 July 2013

During a routine inspection

We found people were involved as much as possible in decisions about care and treatment. Decisions were made in people’s best interest when they were assessed as not having capacity to make the decision. We observed staff speak with people in a caring and friendly way.

People who used the service were provided with a balanced and varied diet. We found staff were knowledgeable about people’s nutritional needs and health professionals provided guidance and treatment when required.

We found people received their medicines as prescribed.

We found there were sufficient staff employed in the service to meet people’s needs. Relatives said staff kept them informed about important issues and they had observed staff treat people with dignity and respect. Comments included, “The staff are great, you can talk to them” and “They are lovely and really seem to understand her. The staff are calm and don’t flap. I trust them completely.”

The service had a complaints procedure and people who used the service were provided with information in a format that was appropriate for them. Relatives told us they knew how to complain and would feel able to complain if required.

Inspection carried out on 13 July 2012

During a routine inspection

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people who used the service, because the people who used the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences.

There were four people who used the service and all had complex needs associated with learning disability. We were unable to communicate verbally with people but we were able to observe how they interacted with staff and each other and how they were supported in their daily lives.

We observed a calm and relaxed atmosphere in the home. People had their own specialised chairs to sit in and their own routines throughout the day. People were able to move about freely throughout the home. There was a restriction into the kitchen when members of staff were not present. This was to be the subject of a meeting with the local safeguarding team next week.

We observed lunch being served and saw that people enjoyed their meal. We also observed that staff supported people to eat their meal in a way that promoted their dignity and encouraged their independence.

We observed that people were dressed in an individual way and staff had supported people with their appearance.