We carried out a review of the data available to us about Dimensions Baily Thomas House Haysoms Drive on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Dimensions Baily Thomas House Haysoms Drive, you can give feedback on this service.
Dimensions Baily Thomas House is a 'care home' registered to provide accommodation and personal care support for up to six people living with a learning disability, or autistic spectrum disorder. People may also have physical disabilities or show distressed or anxious behaviours, and some people had limited verbal communication.
The service primarily operates as a respite service but at the time of the inspection some people were living there longer term whilst awaiting accommodation and support to be organised for them elsewhere. On the day of the inspection five people in total were using the service.
Dimensions Baily Thomas House also provides day services for people living elsewhere within the community. As these day services do not provide personal care and accommodation for people this falls outside the regulation of The Care Quality Commission (CQC) and so did not form part of this inspection.
People’s experience of using this service:
Dimensions Baily Thomas House is used flexibly by 32 people in total throughout the year, who self-book accommodation for respite care. Some people used the service regularly each week, others for a short period of time on one occasion. People told us they valued the services provided. One relative said, “It feels a very happy place” and “they try their best to be flexible, to help meet our needs as well as (name of person).”
Since the last inspection a new manager had been registered. The registered manager had a clear understanding of the development needs of the service, and had been working on service development plans, training plans for staff and re-establishing the staff team.
Effective quality assurance systems were in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the services provided. People and their relatives were regularly consulted on the operation of the service and asked to make comments or suggestions on how it could be improved, including through social events such as coffee mornings.
Risks to people were assessed and guidance available in people’s care plans on how to reduce risks and maintain continuity of care. The service understood one of the biggest risks to people’s well-being was the interface between services, home and ensuring clear communication about people’s needs. Relatives completed documentation before each stay to record any changes in people’s needs. Care plans were all being reviewed to ensure they were all up to date and comprehensive, reflecting every element of people’s needs and lifestyle. Plans also reflected professional guidance and involvement from community teams, including for example photographs of how to support the person to move and be positioned.
The service ensured changes in best practice guidance were implemented to help make improvements in people’s lives. For example, outcomes for people using the service for respite were in line with the principles and values of Registering the Right Support guidance. This meant people had opportunities to continue to be involved with their local community, and experience as many activities and choices as possible.
Risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing were assessed and acted upon. Risk assessments gave staff clear direction on how to minimise risks for people. Risks from the environment were managed.
People living at the service were protected from abuse because staff had received training and were confident in raising concerns about people’s wellbeing. Safe medicines practice was understood and used. Families ensured information on any medicine changes were shared with the service.
People’s rights regarding capacity and consent were understood and information was available to help people understand their rights and how to keep safe. The service was acting on advice to make applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards for each person to ensure their rights were protected while at the service.
Staff were provided with the training, supervision and support they needed. There was a thorough recruitment process which updated checks such as police record checks regularly, to ensure staff remained safe to work with people. Relatives told us there had been a higher turnover of staff which had led to the use of more agency staff, but this was settling with a new staffing team in place.
Staff were positive about the people they were supporting. We saw people engaging with staff with good humour and respect.
More information is in the full report
Rating at last inspection: This service was rated as good at their last inspection (report published on 26 June 2017).
Why we inspected: This inspection was scheduled based on the last inspection date and rating of the service.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor the intelligence we receive about the service. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
Dimensions Baily Thomas House Haysoms Drive is a respite service for up to six people at a time with a learning disability. People may have associated physical or behavioural difficulties. The service supports a total of 50 people through planned and agreed respite stays.
Rating at last inspection.
At the last inspection in October 2014, the service was rated Good.
At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
Why the service is rated Good.
The service met relevant fundamental standards.
People felt safe and well cared for by staff. Where risks were identified, appropriate steps had been taken to minimise these. Medicines were managed so as to reduce the risk of errors, given the frequency of their transfer between people’s homes and the service. Potential new staff were subject to a robust recruitment process. Once appointed, staff received a thorough induction and training to equip them with the necessary knowledge and skills and were provided with ongoing support and development opportunities.
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. People were supported to be involved in day to day household activities and tasks and had access to a variety of activities and external day services and other resources.
People, relatives and external care professionals felt staff provided consistent and caring support and they worked effectively with external care and health services where necessary. People’s rights were protected and staff always sought consent before providing care. People’s dignity and privacy were maintained in the way staff provided their support. The building was suitably adapted to meet people’s physical needs and was fully accessible to those using wheelchairs.
The service was responsive to people’s wishes with regard to their respite stays and the level of care people wanted. It had provided support in an emergency at times. People and their families were involved in planning their care and care plans were positive and enabling. Staff worked calmly and effectively with people, supporting and respecting their individuality.
The service was well led. People, families and professionals all praised the approach and flexibility of the registered manager and staff. The operation of the service was monitored effectively and people and their families had opportunities to contribute their views about it.
We inspected Dimensions Baily Thomas House Haysoms Drive on 22 October 2014. This was an unannounced inspection.
The service provides respite care support for adults or young people living in the community who have a learning disability. People may also have associated physical or behavioural difficulties. The service provided respite support for a total of 38 people as well as outreach support for 13 people. The home itself can accommodate up to six people for respite care at any one time. There were no concerns identified at the previous inspection in August 3013.
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.
The staff knew how to keep people safe and understood how to report any concerns around safeguarding. Relatives and external healthcare professionals told us people were safe and cared for with dignity and kindness. The people we saw during the inspection were unable to tell us verbally whether they felt safe but their body language, facial expressions and behaviour suggested they felt relaxed and well cared for.
Staffing levels were adjusted to meet the needs of the individuals being supported at any one time and management support or advice was always available. The service had sought external advice and support from health professionals, parents and care managers where necessary, to maintain people’s safety and wellbeing.
Staff recruitment was thorough. Staff received the training and support they needed and medicines were safely managed. Respite care packages were tailored to meet people’s assessed needs. People and their families were involved in planning their care. Care plans were person-centred and identified individual likes, dislikes and preferences. Care plans were amended when necessary to reflect people’s wishes and changing needs.
Communication systems between staff were good and staff knew how to communicate with people and gain their consent to care and support. The home provided people with meals they enjoyed and involved them in its preparation as much as they wished. Staff worked with people in a respectful and caring way, treating them as adults and involving them in decision making. Care plans reflected people needs and wishes.
The home provided flexible care support and responded effectively to crises and emergencies by offering respite at short notice when this was needed. The needs of people and their families were taken into account when planning respite stays. People’s individual cultural or personal preferences were supported. People’s views and those of their families were sought, about the quality of the service and acted upon. The opinions of staff and health professionals were also sought. People were told about and knew how to raise any complaints and any issues raised had been appropriately responded to.
The service was well managed and monitored by the registered manager who responded appropriately to any identified issues. Communication, training and support were all provided effectively by management and staff development was encouraged and supported. Staff and relatives said the registered manager was approachable and supportive. External health professionals, care managers and parents told us that any concerns had been listened to and addressed. The provider also monitored the operation of the service through quarterly audit visits and any identified issues were added to their “service improvement plan” and the action taken was monitored to ensure the issue was addressed.
We saw that people were offered a varied and balanced diet. Fresh fruit and vegetables were available and people helped choose menus and prepare meals, as appropriate. People told us that the food was ''very good''.
We found that staff understood and were able to explain how they kept people safe from abuse or poor care. A person told us that they felt ''very safe'' and ''protected'' by staff in the home.
We saw that the home was comfortable and well maintained. They took health and safety seriously to make sure that the people who visited the home and others were as safe as possible.
We found that staff were trained and supported to make sure that they could give people the best possible care. Staff described the team as ''very committed'' and the management as ''very supportive''.
The home had ways of looking at the care they offered so that they could make sure they maintained and improved it. People were asked for their views and opinions about the quality of care.
We spoke with a small number of guests visiting the home for respite care; we were not able to speak to other guests visiting the service as they were participating in their day time activities. A guest told us that they were ''looked after very well'' and they ''loved'' visiting the home. We gathered evidence of people's experiences by examining survey questionnaires and other records. We found that they had been involved in planning their care and what they could do each day. We saw that staff were familiar with people's needs and gave them opportunities to make choices.
The care plans we saw provided individual details of guest's needs, wishes and preferences. Guest's healthcare needs were met. The home sought advice from external healthcare professionals where appropriate. A range of activities were provided and guests could choose whether they wished to take part.
Staff received an appropriate induction and the home had ensured that staff received regular supervision. Staff were also supported through a system of appraisals and regular training. The provider and manager had effective systems in place to monitor the performance of the home.