You are here

Archived: Dimensions 4a Ash Street Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 5 May 2015

Dimensions 4a Ash Street is registered to provide accommodation and support for five people diagnosed with learning disabilities or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of our inspection there were four people living in the home.

The inspection was unannounced and took place on the 4,5,10 November and 19 December 2014.

The service had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

People we spoke with told us they felt safe within the home and because of the care that staff provided them with. They told us that the staff were caring and respectful and met their needs. Our observations confirmed this and we found that there were effective systems in place to protect people from the risk of harm.

The provider had a robust recruitment process in place. Records we looked at, confirmed that staff started work in the home after all recruitment checks had been satisfactorily completed. Staff told us that they had not been offered employment until these checks had been confirmed.

Systems were in place to ensure that medicines were stored, administered and handled safely. Staffing arrangements meant there were enough staff to manage medicines appropriately and to meet people’s needs safely.

The CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find. Through our discussions, we found staff demonstrated that they understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. This meant they were working to support people who may lack capacity to make their own decisions. The registered manager had a good knowledge of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and advised us that they had made applications in respect of the people living at the service.

Staff understood the needs of people and we saw that care was provided with kindness, compassion and assured their dignity and privacy. People and their relatives all spoke very positively about the home and the care that people received.

Staff told us they received on-going training and we found that they were appropriately trained and understood their roles and responsibilities, as well as the values of the home. They said that they had completed on going training to ensure that the care provided to people was safe and effective to meet their needs. Staff also told us they had robust support, induction and supervision that was relevant to the needs of the people who lived at Dimensions 4a Ash Street.

People received effective support around their personal needs and we found that staff supported people to maintain their mobility and nutritional needs.

People had access to healthcare professionals when they became unwell or required help with an existing medical condition. We found that people’s ability to remain independent was encouraged and people were supported to access activities that they enjoyed within the home and in the wider community.

Staff spoke positively about the support they received from the registered manager. Staff told us there was a good level of communication within the home which helped them to be aware of any changes. People told us they found the staff and management approachable and knew how to raise complaints and concerns.

We found that the service was well-led and that staff were well supported and consequently motivated to do a good job. The registered manager and senior staff consistently monitored and reviewed the quality of care people received and encouraged feedback from people and their representatives, to identify, plan and make improvements to the service.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 5 May 2015

This service was safe.

Staff had a good knowledge of safeguarding and knew how to identify and raise safeguarding concerns. The registered manager acted on safeguarding concerns to ensure that people were protected.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs, knew what to do to keep people safe and prevent any risks from harm. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs as staffing levels were mainly one to one.

There were systems in place to ensure that medicines were managed safely and stored securely at the home.

Effective

Good

Updated 5 May 2015

The service was effective

People received care from staff who were well trained to meet their individual and on going needs. People were provided with their choice of sufficient food and drink.

People’s consent was obtained. Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) when supporting people who lacked capacity to make decisions for themselves. The service met the requirements of the Deprivation of Liberty safeguards.

People had access to healthcare advice when they needed it to help maintain their health and well-being.

Caring

Good

Updated 5 May 2015

The service was caring.

We observed that staff were kind and compassionate and respected people’s privacy and dignity.

People were supported in a caring manner by staff who were aware of and used people’s preferred names. We observed that the registered manager and the staff team supported and developed a positive and caring culture at the service. The culture of the service built positive relationships with the people who used lived there.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and their independence was encouraged by staff who supported them.

Responsive

Good

Updated 5 May 2015

The service was responsive.

People and their representatives were encouraged to make their views known about their care, treatment and support. Relatives were involved in reviewing people’s care when they could not do so themselves.

People’s individual needs and preferences had been assessed and were met in a timely manner.

People felt able to raise concerns with the management and the staff if they had any.

People were fully supported to take part in their various activities.

Well-led

Good

Updated 5 May 2015

The service was well led.

The registered manager was approachable and people, relatives and staff thought they were effective in their role.

Staff were happy at the service and told us they were listened to and could challenge the way care and support was being provided should they be required to.

The quality of the service was monitored regularly through audit checks and receiving people’s feedback. Relatives spoke highly of the quality of care their family members received.