You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 10 March 2017

The inspection took place on 10 January 2017. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice, because we wanted to make sure that the relevant people we needed to speak to would be available.

The service had a registered manager who also managers another service that is owned by the provider. 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.

Dimensions 87 Hazel Avenue provides accommodation and personal care for up to five adults with learning disabilities, physical disabilities or both. At the time of the inspection four men were living at the service, who were over the age of 55. The environment was safe and had been purpose built to suit the needs of people who were wheelchair users or who had restricted mobility, as it provided level access throughout.

People who lived at the service had their own individual ways of communication through eye contact, gestures or noises. Throughout the inspection we saw staff responding to people’s needs and providing care and support in a person centred manner. Staff were able to immediately recognise when people needed or wanted help or support, however the need was expressed. However, not all the recording of people’s needs was being done in a person centred way and not all guidance for staff was clear in order to demonstrate how changes in some people’s needs had been addressed.

People were encouraged to make decisions about their daily care and support. We saw how well staff understood people’s communication needs which enabled staff to support people to make choices. Where people needed to have a legal representative or relative represent their views then these were sought and acted upon. A relative/legal representative told us: “Plenty of opportunity to change things about [person’s name] care if I wanted” and they went on to explain how staff then acted on what they had said to further improve the person’s support.

People were kept safe because staff understood their responsibilities in protecting people and knew how to report any concerns. People were enabled to take positive risks as part of a person centred lifestyle.

People were supported by staff who consistently demonstrated kindness, compassion and a genuine interest in the people they supported. People showed us positive signs that they were relaxed and at ease with staff and their surroundings. A relative/ persons representatives told us: “He is very well and settled and very happy there, he has a really good relationship with staff and they have a good understanding of his communication needs”.

There were sufficient skilled staff to meet people’s individual needs in a timely and safe way. A staff member said “There is now much more of a focus on staffing levels designed to meet the needs of the residents as they have just recently changed the shift patterns in the morning, it makes it much better”. Many of the staff were new to the service but had previously worked in the provider’s other services and they told us about their positive induction into the service. One staff member said: “I was given time to get to know people, it gave me the confidence I needed to know what I was supposed to be doing”. Staff spoke enthusiastically about recent ‘active support training’ which is a method of enabling people with learning disabilities to engage more in their daily lives. A staff member said “It has changed the way we support and now get people more involved”.

People were supported to maintain good health and to access healthcare services as and when required.

People were engaged in individual meaningful occupation and activities and were supported to take part in wider community activities. Staff told us: “Lot more interaction here

Inspection areas



Updated 10 March 2017

The service was safe.

People were protected from harm because staff understood their role in keeping people safe.

Risks to people were identified, assessed and actions were taken to protect people from those risks.

There were sufficient numbers of staff on duty to make sure people were safe and received the care and support that they needed.

People were supported to receive their medicines safely.



Updated 10 March 2017

The service was effective.

People were supported by staff that had been trained and had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs.

Staff understood people’s communication methods and used those methods to seek people’s consent. People’s rights were promoted and protected in line with legal requirements.

People were supported to have enough and to be able to safely eat and drink. People were supported to maintain good health and to have access to a range of healthcare services.



Updated 10 March 2017

The service was caring.

Staff supported people in a caring, dignified and compassionate way and people showed they were at ease with staff.

People were encouraged to make their own choices about their lifestyles. Where needed, advocates or representatives were available to support people’s decision making.

People’s privacy and dignity were promoted and respected by staff when they provided care and support.


Requires improvement

Updated 10 March 2017

The service was not always responsive.

Although people’s individual needs and preferences were assessed and their care was person centred, records did not always provide the necessary guidance for staff on some people’s changing needs.

People took part in individual meaningful activities.

People’s experiences, concerns and wishes were listened to which enabled staff to use these in order to support people.



Updated 10 March 2017

The service was well-led.

A clear management structure was in place to ensure people and staff were supported. People and staff had access to the management team who were visible and available.

The provider and Registered Manager promoted a positive culture that was centred on people’s needs. The service was kept under review to ensure that it provided quality care and action was taken to improve the service if needed.