You are here

We are carrying out a review of quality at Dimensions 149 Ash Street. We will publish a report when our review is complete. Find out more about our inspection reports.

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 10 February 2017

Dimensions 149 Ash Street provides accommodation, care and support to five people with learning disabilities. The home is situated in a residential area with accommodation over two floors.

The inspection took place on 10 November 2016 and was unannounced.

There was 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. The registered manager was unavailable during the inspection, support was provided by the deputy manager to access records and information.

At our last inspection in August 2015 we found two breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. People’s medicines were not stored securely and the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were not always followed. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made. All medicines were now being stored in a locked cabinet and capacity assessments and best interest decisions were in place, where required, to ensure people’s legal rights were protected.

Medicines were managed safely and records showed that people received their medicines in accordance with prescription guidance. People were supported to maintain good health and had regular access to a range of healthcare professionals. People were supported to have a nutritious diet and were able to make choices regarding what they had to eat and drink.

People appeared relaxed and comfortable in the company of staff. Staff had a good understanding of their responsibilities in safeguarding people from potential abuse. Risks to people’s safety and well-being were assessed and measures were in place to keep people safe. Environmental risks were monitored and there was a contingency plan in place to ensure that people would continue to receive care in the event of an emergency. Accidents and incidents were reviewed in order to identify any trends and minimise the risk of them being repeated.

There were sufficient staff deployed and staff worked flexibly to meet people’s individual needs. Safe recruitment practices were followed to help ensure that staff employed were suitable to work at the service. Staff received an induction when starting work which gave them the opportunity to get to know people’s needs. Staff received training and support that provided them with the knowledge and skills required to support people in an effective, person centred manner. Staff told us they felt supported by the management of the service and records showed they received regular supervision to monitor their performance.

People were supported by staff who treated them with respect and understood the importance of developing and maintaining people’s independence. We observed people were actively involved in the running of their home. People were supported to maintain relationships with those important to them and where appropriate had access to advocacy services.

Staff were knowledgeable about the people they supported and knew their likes, dislikes and interests. Care plans had been developed which were person centred and described people’s preferences, choices and how they wanted their care to be provided. People were provided with a range of activities to pursue their individual interests and hobbies.

Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the quality of service being delivered. Where actions were identified these were completed in a timely manner. A complaints policy was in place and we found complaints were investigated and responded to in line with the provider’s policy. There was a positive culture and staff were clear about their responsibilities in providing person centred care.

Inspection areas



Updated 10 February 2017

The service was safe.

There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people’s needs flexibly.

Medicines were managed safely.

Robust recruitment procedures were in place to ensure staff were suitable to work at the service.

Risks to people’s safety and well-being were assessed and control measures implemented to keep people’s safe.

Staff were knowledgeable about their responsibilities in protecting people from suspected abuse.



Updated 10 February 2017

The service was effective.

Staff received effective induction, training and supervision to meet people’s needs.

People's rights were protected. All staff were knowledgeable about the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People’s nutritional needs were met and people were provided with choices regarding their food.

People received support to access healthcare when required.



Updated 10 February 2017

The service was caring.

People were supported by staff who knew them well and there was a relaxed and friendly atmosphere in the service.

People were treated with dignity and their privacy was respected.

Staff supported people to maintain and develop their independence.

Visitors were made to feel welcome.



Updated 10 February 2017

The service was responsive to people’s needs.

Detailed care plans were in place which gave guidance to staff on how people preferred their support.

People had access to a range of activities which met their individual preferences.

There was a complaints policy in place and complaints were appropriately addressed and monitored.



Updated 10 February 2017

The service was well-led.

The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service.

Staff were involved in the development of the service. Regular team meetings were held and staff told us they felt able to contribute ideas.

Records were organised, well maintained and securely stored.