Dimensions Somerset Northmead House

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last inspection we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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.

There was a proactive and positive culture of safety based on openness and honesty. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. There were processes in place to record and learn from accidents and incidents.

Staff told us they had a learning culture. One staff member told us, “We have staff meetings and share learning, [name of registered manager] and [name of assistant manager] are very approachable, we discuss how we can move forward.” The registered manager gave examples of how they shared learning from incidents with staff.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

Processes supported safe transitions, including hospital passports and emergency protocols. Staff followed clear handover procedures when people moved between settings, and risk assessments were in place for activities and transport.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People’s relatives told us their family members were safe. One relative told us, “[Name of person] is 100% safe. Another relative commented, “‘I do believe [name of person] is safe because they come home perfectly alright and happy. If [name of person] wasn’t happy we would know.”

Staff were trained in safeguarding and whistleblowing and could describe how to report concerns.

The registered manager was aware of their responsibility to ensure appropriate applications were completed where required to authorise a person being deprived of their liberty. They had a system in place to monitor people’s applications.

The service worked well with people to understand and manage risks. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe and supportive.

Risks to people were identified in care plans and there were control measures in place to mitigate the risks. Areas covered included, accessing the community, personal care, moving and handling, health needs and people’s Personal Emergency Evacuation Plans (PEEPS). We identified 1 risk assessment that lacked some details relating to the actions staff would take in an emergency. The registered manager added this detail during the assessment.

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

There were a range of health and safety checks in place, these included checks on equipment, water, fire, gas and electric. Some areas of the service appeared tired and worn, the provider had plans for refurbishment, and improvements were ongoing.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development.

People’s relatives told us there were enough staff, staff were consistent and knew their family members well. One relative told us, “There are enough staff and it’s the same staff.” Staffing levels met people’s needs, and rotas were planned in advance.

Staff received training to meet people’s needs, including their specific health needs. One person who used the service had a rare disorder and the registered manager had arranged for a relative to deliver training to staff. The relative told us, “They requested training, so I delivered that personally. The staff have done the training, and they wanted it too.”

There were effective systems in place to support the safe recruitment of staff. Staff spoke positively about support and supervision.

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading

The service was clean and staff had access to appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). Cleaning schedules and fridge temperature checks were maintained. A relative told us, “It’s always clean and tidy.”

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

Relatives were happy with how people were supported with their medicines. One relative told us, “They are very on top of medicines.”

Medicines were stored securely and administered by trained staff. Medicines administration records (MARs) were completed, and protocols for ‘when required’ medicines were in place. Any learning from medication errors was discussed in team meetings, and duty of candour was applied when incidents occurred.