You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 March 2017

Dimensions 42 Jubilee Road provides accommodation, care and support to five people with learning disabilities. The home is situated in a residential area with accommodation all on one level.

The inspection took place on 30 January 2017 and was unannounced.

There was a registered manager in post who supported us during the inspection. 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.

At our inspection in October 2015 we found that staff did not have a good understanding of their responsibilities in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). People’s legal rights had not always been protected as people’s capacity to make specific decisions was not assessed and decisions taken in their best interests were not recorded. At this inspection we found that improvements had been made and staff were working in accordance with MCA guidance. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s rights, capacity assessments had been completed and best interest decisions recorded.

We also identified that the Care Quality Commission had not always been informed of significant incidents in the service to enable us to monitor the service effectively. At this inspection we found that the registered manager had submitted notifications in line with their responsibilities as a registered person.

People were supported by sufficient staff with the right skills and knowledge to meet their individual needs. We observed that staff were available to support people when required and no one had to wait for their care. Prior to being employed staff underwent a robust recruitment process to ensure they were suitable to work at the service. All staff had completed mandatory training and had an induction into the service to enable them to get to know people and the systems in place. Staff told us they felt supported by the manager and records confirmed that all staff received regular supervision to monitor their professional development.

Risks to people’s personal safety had been assessed and plans were in place to minimise these risks. Staff were knowledgably about the support people required to stay safe. Regular health and safety monitoring was completed and where concerns were identified these were acted upon. A contingency plan had been developed to ensure people would continue to receive their care in the event that the building could not be used.

People received their medicines in line with their prescriptions and safe medicines practices were in place. Records showed relevant healthcare professionals were involved in people’s care. Relatives told us they were informed of any health concerns in a timely manner.

People were supported by staff who knew them well and understood their individual communication styles. Staff treated people with kindness and respected people’s need for privacy. Care plans were person centred and contained details of people’s preferences. Guidance was available to staff on the support people required and we saw that this was followed. People’s nutritional needs were met and choices of food and drinks were available to people. People had access to a range of activities which reflected people’s hobbies and interests.

There was a complaints policy and procedure in place and relatives told us they felt confident any concerns would be dealt with by the registered manager. Records were securely stored and well maintained which meant staff had easy access to the information they required. Quality assurance systems were used to monitor the quality of the service people received and improvement plans were developed to address any shortfalls identified. People and their relatives were given the opportunity to give feedback on the service they recei

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 March 2017

The service was safe.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities in safeguarding people from abuse and how to report any concerns.

Risks to people’s safety were assessed and staff followed guidance to minimise these risks.

There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs in a timely manner.

Medicines were administered and stored safely.

There was a contingency plan in place to ensure people would continue to receive care in an emergency.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 March 2017

The service was effective.

The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were followed to ensure that people’s legal rights were protected.

People’s nutritional needs were met and choices of food were provided.

People were supported to access a range of healthcare professionals.

Staff received training and support their development and enable them to meet people’s needs.

Caring

Good

Updated 9 March 2017

The service was caring.

There were positive relationships between staff and people. Staff had respect for people's privacy.

People were supported by staff who knew them well.

People were treated with dignity and respect and supported to maintain their independence.

Relatives told us they were made to feel welcome when visiting their family members.

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 March 2017

The service was responsive.

People received personalised care that was responsive to their needs, likes and dislikes.

People took part in varied activities which took into account their individual hobbies and interests.

There was a complaints policy and procedure in place and relatives told us they would feel comfortable in raising any concerns

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 March 2017

The service was well-led.

The registered manager had informed the CQC of notable events in line with their responsibilities as a registered person.

Quality assurance process were in place to ensure continuous improvement.

The provider had sought feedback from people receiving support, their relatives and staff.

There was a positive culture and staff were clear on the values of the organisation.