Dimensions Somerset Northmead House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the service met people’s needs.At our last inspection we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Relatives told us staff knew their family members well. One relative told us, “They know [name of person] well, absolutely.”

People received person-centred care and support, and care plans were individualised to reflect their needs and preferences. One person’s care plan lacked specific detail relating to how they were supported with a specific item of their clothing. We discussed this with the registered manager who updated the persons care plan.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s routines and choices, and we observed positive interactions where people were supported to make decisions about their day-to-day lives.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff were trained in delegated health tasks and liaised with families to ensure continuity of care.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. We observed staff using a range of individual communication methods during their interactions with people.

Care plans contained information about people’s communication needs, and staff were trained to support people who used tools such as eye-gaze technology. Information was presented in easy-read formats to support understanding. Staff told us how they supported 1 person whose first language was not English using technology to translate information.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

People were involved in decisions about their care, and staff sought consent before providing support. Observations showed staff asking permission before entering rooms and offering choices about activities and meals. Relatives confirmed that staff listened and acted on concerns.

The service had systems for gathering feedback, including surveys for people and their relatives. People had their surveys in an easy-to-read format. The registered manager told us they were in the process of collating the recent feedback received. Once the feedback was received the registered manager told us they would respond to people and their relatives telling them the action that had been taken in response to their feedback.

The provider had a complaints policy in place; there had been no complaints raised in the past year. Relatives highlighted good communication overall, although some requested more written updates, which the registered manager acknowledged and planned to improve. Relatives told us they would speak to staff or the registered manager if they had any concerns.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff supported people to access services in line with their individual needs.

Internal and external communal areas of the service were accessible to people with all levels of mobility. The kitchen had been refurbished with input from people and a lower worksurface had been installed for people who use a wheelchair.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People, their relatives and staff felt listened to and respected. Throughout our inspection visits we saw people were supported in ways that met their individual needs and preferences.

Staff received equality and diversity training and were aware of barriers people may face. People were supported to maintain relationships and participate in community activities, such as attending local events and using technology to stay in touch with family.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future.

The service supported people with short breaks, working closely with families to plan care. One relative told us, “I don’t know what I would do without it.” Staff demonstrated flexibility in arranging stays and adapting support to meet people’s individual needs. One relative told us, “There’s one thing I am very, very impressed with is the amount of flexibility they offer with dates. They’re willing to change dates and at short notice.”