Archived: Dimensions 66 Rectory Road

• Is the service safe?

• Is the service effective?

• Is the service caring?

• Is the service responsive?

• Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Systems were in place to make sure that the registered manager and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve.

People were protected against the risks of infection as the provider had arrangements in place for keeping the home clean. The registered manager had checked the cleanliness of the home to help ensure the risk of infection was reduced.

Staff employed by the home had been recruited effectively. The provider demonstrated that appropriate checks had been obtained and that staff were trained and supported in their role.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberties Safeguards which applies to care homes. The provider had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no current applications were in place. Staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and in how to submit one. This meant that people would be safeguarded as required.

Is the service effective?

People were involved in identifying their own health and care needs. The provider had also considered information and involvement from relatives, other health professionals and staff.

People were provided with a choice of suitable and nutritious food and drink. The provider was able to demonstrate that dietary needs had been assessed and people’s preferences included when the menus were planned. For example, people had been involved in shopping trips to purchase the food.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people.

Staff we spoke with had a good knowledge of people's individual needs, and knew how to support people so that their needs were met. Staff spoke about people as individuals and we observed that staff listened to people’s views and opinions.

Is the service responsive?

People regularly completed a range of activities in and outside the service and staff supported them in arranging and attending these activities.

We saw the home had been responsive to people’s changing needs and had responded to professional advice that had been provided. For example, we saw the home had requested one person to be reassessed due to their changing needs and action had been taken to meet the change in needs.

Is the service well-led?

The provider had a quality assurance system in place. We saw records that identified shortfalls and the actions that had been taken to address them. The provider listened and responded to people, staff and visitors who had left comments and suggestions.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff told us that they felt the home provided a good quality of service and people were well cared for. They told us that the system in place meant they felt supported in their role and knew where to find information when needed. For example, there was information in each person’s care plans and a record of the care provided.

We spoke with the assistant manager and three support workers. We spoke with the regional director on the telephone. We spent time with people who used the service. We were unable to speak with people who used the service due to their level of complex needs and communication difficulties. We also spoke with four relatives of people who used the service.

We saw that staff spoke with people in a respectful manner. We observed that people appeared relaxed and comfortable with the care provided. Comments from relatives included: “Fantastic” and that people who used the service were “Given a lot of choice in food, drinks and activities”.

We looked at the care records for two people and found that their needs had been assessed. Staff told us that they were aware of each person’s needs and how to give care and support to meet these needs.

We saw that staff had made efforts to reduce the risk of incidents between people who used the service occurring. This was to safeguard people from the risk of harm.

We found that medicines were prescribed and given to people appropriately to make sure that they were managed safely.

Staff received support through staff meetings, staff supervision and training. This made sure that all staff had suitable skills to people who used the service.

A pictorial complaints procedure had been made available to help people should they wish to make a complaint.

We returned to 66, Rectory Road on 26 October 2012 and found people to be at home although most went out for periods of time during our inspection.

During our inspection we spent time with people who used the service while they were in the dining room and in the lounge. We were able to spend some time with everyone who was using the service. The registered manager and deputy manager attended the home following our arrival.

We saw people who used the service taking part in a range of activities during the day and they told us about other things they do outside of the home

We found that staff on duty had a good understanding of the needs of people and that they supported them to meet their needs.

People who used the service indicated that they were happy and felt safe. Staff had knowledge about safeguarding procedures in the home.

Staff had been trained in areas relevant to the specific needs of people who used the service.

Suitable systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of care provided and as a means to identify any improvements needed.