You are here

Dimensions Somerset Greengates Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 24 August 2018

This inspection took place on 11 and 13 June 2018 and was unannounced. This is the first inspection for the location under this new provider.

Dimensions Somerset Greengates is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Dimensions Somerset Greengates accommodates up to seven people with learning disabilities, including autism. At the time of the inspection there were five people living at the home. Most of the people were unable to communicate verbally with us. Their opinions were captured through observations, interactions they had with staff and their reactions. People had their own bedrooms and there were shared bathrooms. Within the home there were communal spaces including two living rooms and a kitchen. There was a garden people were free to access throughout the day.

"The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen”. Registering the Right Support CQC policy.

At the time of the inspection 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.

Although people and their relatives told us they were safe, we found there could be improvements to keep people safe in the event of a fire. Staff knew how to prevent the spread of infection and people’s medicine was managed safely. Health and safety checks such as testing the water for a specific disease were regularly completed to keep people safe.

People told us they were happy and others appeared comfortable in the presence of staff. Those able to tell us and one relative told us they were kept safe. Risk assessments were carried out to enable people to retain their independence and receive care with minimum risk to themselves or others.

The management had developed positive relationships with people, their families and other professionals. There were enough staff to keep people safe including using regular agency staff. Staff had received a range of training to meet most of the people’s needs. Recruitment systems were in place to reduce the risk of inappropriate staff working at the home.

People were protected from potential abuse because staff understood how to recognise signs of abuse and knew who to report it to. When there had been accidents or incidents systems were in place to demonstrate lessons learnt and how improvements were made. People had their healthcare needs met and staff supported them to see other health and social care professionals. When changes were identified to manage health needs staff liaised with health professionals.

People were supported to have choice and control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. There was clear guidance to inform staff how people would give their consent. When people lacked capacity, decisions had been made on their behalf following current legislation. People were supported to eat a healthy, balanced diet and had choices about what they ate. Specialist diets were understood and staff had enough guidance to support people.

Care and support was personalised to each person which ensured they could make choices about their day to day lives. Care plans contained information about people’s needs and wishes and staff were aware of them. These were updated in line with people’s changing ne

Inspection areas



Updated 24 August 2018

The service was safe.

People were supported by staff who knew how to administer their medicine safely.

People were protected from risks because care plans contained guidance for staff and risk assessments were in place.

People had risks of potential abuse or harm minimised because staff understood the correct processes to be followed.

People were kept safe because most health and safety checks were regular and in line with company policies.



Updated 24 August 2018

The service was effective

People were supported by staff who had most of the skills and knowledge to meet their needs.

People had decisions made in line with current national guidance and relevant representatives were consulted.

People had access to healthcare support because there were strong links with them.

People�s nutritional needs were assessed to make sure they received a diet that met their needs and wishes.



Updated 24 August 2018

The service was caring.

People could make choices and staff respected their decisions.

People�s privacy and dignity was respected by the staff.

People were supported by kind and caring staff who knew them very well.

People were able to exercise their religious and cultural beliefs.



Updated 24 August 2018

The service was responsive.

People�s needs and wishes regarding their care were understood by staff. Care plans contained information to provide guidance for staff.

People participated in a range of activities to meet their hobbies and interests.

People were listened to when they were upset. There was a system in place to manage complaints.



Updated 24 August 2018

The service was well led.

People were supported by a management who made changes to systems when they identified things could be improved.

People were using a service which had clear scrutiny to ensure they were receiving care and treatment in line with their needs.

People benefitted from using a service which had staff who felt supported and worked as a team.