Dimensions Newton House

Dimensions Newton House is a residential care home offering respite care and providing personal care to four people at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to five people.

Dimensions Newton House is laid out over two floors; people can access these by stairs and a lift. Bedrooms are laid out over both floors with some offering en-suite facilities. The communal kitchen-dining room and lounge is located on the first floor. There is an activities area on the ground floor and people have level access to the garden. The registered manager’s office is adjacent to the reception area.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.

Right Care: People received person-centred care; we observed staff acting in a person-centred way and care plans reflected people’s wishes and preferences. Relatives said their loved ones looked forward to staying at Dimensions Newton House. People’s privacy and dignity was respected and people were involved with decisions about their care.

Right Support: Staff supported people to be as independent as possible, staff knew people well and how to meet their needs. People, staff, professionals and relatives were involved with decision making where appropriate. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Right Culture: We received positive comments from relatives and people about staff and the management team. We observed staff working with people respectfully and measures were in place to protect people from avoidable harm. There was an inclusive approach to care provision and staff levels were reviewed and amended in response to people’s care needs.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection - The last rating for this service was good (published 11 November 2017).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating. The overall rating for the service has remained the same.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Dimensions Newton House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good.

The home continued to ensure people were safe. There were enough suitable staff to meet people’s needs. Risk assessments were carried out to enable people to retain their independence and receive care with minimum risk to themselves or others. People received their medicines safely and, where possible, were supported to administer their own medicines. People were protected from abuse because staff understood how to keep them safe, including more senior staff understanding the processes they should follow if an allegation of abuse was made. All staff informed us concerns would be followed up if they were raised.

People continued to receive effective care. People who lacked capacity had decisions made in line with current legislation. Staff received training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge required to effectively support people. People told us, and we saw, their healthcare needs were met. People were supported to eat and drink according to their likes and dislikes. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The home continued to provide a caring service to people. People and their relatives told us, and we observed that staff were kind and patient. People’s privacy and dignity was respected by staff and their cultural or religious needs were valued. People were involved in decisions about the care and support they received. People’s choices were always respected and staff encouraged choice for those who struggled to communicate with them.

The home remained responsive to people’s individual needs. Care and support was personalised to each person which ensured they were able to make choices about their day to day lives. People were supported to follow their own activity programmes. These considered people’s hobbies and interests and reflected people’s preferences. People knew how to complain and there were a range of opportunities for them to raise concerns with the registered manager and designated staff.

The home continued to be well led. People and staff spoke highly about the management. The registered manager continually monitored the quality of the service and made improvements in accordance with people’s changing needs.

The service met all relevant fundamental standards.

We went back to Newton House in September 2013 to check on these improvements. We found the provider had made the existing systems more robust, and the records and procedures for management of medicines had improved.

People we met said they were happy with the support they received at Newton House. Relatives of people who stayed there regularly were also happy with the care and support for their family member. One relative said the person "looks forward to coming here." Another relative said "we get a break from each other, and they enjoy going to stay there." This person said "the staff have been there a long time and are pretty good." A person who used the service regularly described the staff as "kind" and another said "they are good and I like them all really."

We found the service made sure people had food and drinks when they needed them, although needed to look at the nutritional value of some food they provided. Staff understood how to keep people safe and report any concerns. Staff were trained to carry out their roles, although support needed to be regularly delivered. The management and administration of medicines required improvement.

We were not able to talk with people who stayed at Tanners Walk for respite care as they were out in the community on the day we visited. We met a number of them and talked with their relatives during our review in July 2012.

On this visit we found improvements had been made to records, although there were still some areas needing more thought and attention to detail.