We carried out a review of the data available to us about Dimensions 1 Ridgewood Drive on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Dimensions 1 Ridgewood Drive, you can give feedback on this service.
The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The service applied the principles and values of Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These ensure that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.
The outcomes for people using the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.
People and relatives spoke highly of the service they received at Ridgewood Drive. The service had strong person-centred values and placed people’s wellbeing at the heart of their work. People received personalised support which met their needs and preferences.
Staff knew people well and worked hard to enable them to share their views, make choices and live active lives as independently as possible. People were fully involved in the planning and delivery of their care.
People’s needs were assessed and care was planned and delivered to meet legislation and good practice guidance. People’s support plans contained personalised information which detailed how they wanted their care to be delivered. Staff worked hard to provide people with varied activities and stimulation that met their interests.
Risks to people’s health, safety and wellbeing were identified, assessed and acted upon. People were protected from potential abuse by staff who had received training and were confident in raising concerns. There was a thorough recruitment process in place that checked potential staff were safe to work with people who may be vulnerable to abuse and avoidable harm.
People received their medicines as prescribed by their doctor and there were processes in place to manage the ordering, storing and disposal of medicines. Incidents and accidents were investigated, and actions were taken to prevent reoccurrence. Ridgewood Drive was clean, welcoming and pleasantly decorated. Staff received training and supervision to meet the needs of the people living in the service.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were supported by kind and caring staff who worked hard to promote their wellbeing. Staff were proud to work for the service and treated people with respect and dignity. The service promoted equality and diversity and worked hard to meet all of people’s individual needs.
There was strong leadership at the service. People and staff spoke highly of the registered manager and there was a positive culture at the service with people and staff feeling their voices were listened to.
There were effective quality assurance systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service provided.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection:
The last rating for this service was Good (published January 2017).
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
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.
1 Ridgewood Drive is a purpose built home for up to five people with learning disabilities and complex physical needs. Accommodation is provided over one floor. At the time of our inspection there were five people living at the home.
At our last inspection in October 2015, we identified concerns with staffing levels and compliance with the Mental Capacity Act (2005). At this inspection, we found that action had been taken to resolve the concerns.
People received their medicines safely. Medicines were stored safely and systems were in place to ensure medicine stock could be monitored and audited.
Staff training was tailored to the individual needs of people who lived at the home. Staff told us that they had good access to training and people and relatives told us that staff were effective in their roles.
Risk assessments promoted independence whilst also ensuring people were kept safe from known hazards. Where incidents had occurred, measures were taken to prevent a reoccurrence. Staff understood their roles in safeguarding people.
Staff provided care in line with the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA). Records demonstrated that people’s rights were protected as staff acted in accordance with the MCA when being supported to make specific decisions. Where people had restrictions placed upon them, these were applied for appropriately.
People were supported by kind, compassionate staff who knew them well. Care plans were person centred and reflected people’s needs and preferences. Reviews happened regularly to identify changes in people’s needs.
People lived in an inclusive atmosphere where they were involved in decisions about their home. People had access to a wide range of activities and regular parties and events at the home.
People were supported to eat meals that they enjoyed in line with their dietary requirements. Staff followed the guidance of healthcare professionals where appropriate and we saw evidence of staff working alongside healthcare professionals to achieve positive outcomes for people.
Staff told us that they were well supported by management and were encouraged to make suggestions or raise concerns. Relatives told us that they had a positive relationship with the registered manager and our observations showed people got along well with the registered manager.
Systems were in place to measure the quality of the care that people received. Where shortfalls were identified, the registered manager made improvements to improve the quality of people’s care. People and relatives were given opportunities to provide feedback and were aware of how to make a complaint.
This inspection was carried out on the 20 October 2015 and was unannounced. 1 Ridgewood Drive is a purpose built home for up to five people with learning disabilities and complex physical needs. Accommodation is provided over one floor. On the day of our visit four people lived at the service.
There was a registered manager present on the day of our visit. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.
People’s needs were not always met because there were not enough staff deployed at the service. Although there were enough staff during the week there were often less than the required at weekends.
Accidents and incidents with people were recorded on the service computer with a written copy kept in a file. However it was noted that there was no evidence of the review of these accidents and incidents to identify any trends and what steps were taken reduce the risk of this reoccurring.
Staff had knowledge of safeguarding adult’s procedures and what to do if they suspected any type of abuse. Staff had undergone recruitment checks before they started work.
People’s medicines were administered and stored safely. One member of staff said “I’m trained to give medicines to people, if person refuses the tablets I will leave them and try again later.”
Risks had been assessed and managed appropriately to keep people safe which included the environment. The risk assessments for people were detailed and informative and included measures that had been introduced to reduce the risk of harm.
In the event of an emergency, such as the building being flooded or a fire, there was a service contingency plan which detailed what staff needed to do to protect people and make them safe.
People’s human rights could be affected because the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty (DoLS) were not always followed. There was not enough evidence of mental capacity assessments specific to particular decisions that needed to be made.
People were supported by staff that were knowledgeable and supported in their role. Staff had received all the appropriate training for their role and their competencies were regularly assessed.
One person told us that they enjoyed the meals at the service. They said “I like crumpets with cheese on and I like having chicken curry with poppadum’s, it’s my favourite.” People at risk of dehydration or malnutrition had effective systems in place to support them. However it had been noted that staff were not regularly weighing people.
People had access to a range of health care professionals, such as the Epilepsy nurse, dietician and GP. One health care professional told us that when people visited those staff always came prepared with the correct information and it was clear to them that staff understood people’s support needs and health conditions.
One person that we spoke with told us that the staff were caring. They said “I like it here, it’s a nice house.” Staff interacted with people in a kind and respectful way. One member of staff told us “I love my job, it’s so rewarding, I love caring for people, they (people) become your family.” We saw that staff were caring and respectful of people.
One person told us they were involved in planning their care. We saw that care plans had detail around people’s backgrounds and personal history and included people’s views on what they wanted. Staff knew and understood what was important to the person and supported them to maintain their interests.
People were supported by staff that were given appropriate information to enable them to respond to people effectively. Where it had been identified that a person’s needs had changed staff were providing the most up to date care. People were able to take part in activities which they enjoyed.
One member of staff said “I do think their (people’s) lives are fulfilled, it’s the simple things like going to the pub or going for a coffee.”
One person said if they wanted to make a complaint “If I’m fed up then I would speak to all of them (staff).” There was a complaints procedure in place for people to access if they needed to and this was in a pictorial format for people to understand.
Staff said that they felt supported. One member of staff said that that they felt supported with the management team and when the registered manager was there they could go to them if they needed. However the registered manager had responsibility over three services which meant that staff did not see them regularly.
Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service that people received. This included audits, surveys and meetings with people and staff.
During the inspection we found breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
We spoke with people using the service, a relative and staff which showed us that people were being treated with dignity and respect and people's independence was encouraged. A family member we spoke with told us they felt that their relative was very well cared for and that communication with the home was very good.
Discussions with staff, relatives and a person that uses the service showed us that people were able to make their own choices about what support they received and activities they took part in. For example we observed staff carrying out a weekly menu planning activity with people that use the service. We saw that people were encouraged through the use of pictorial prompts to choose the meals that they liked for the following week.
Staff that we spoke with felt very valued and supported and said that training provided was good. Staff records that we looked at confirmed this. We saw staff training records this showed us that staff were qualified and competent to look after people.
During our visit we saw that people's records were accurate and stored securely within the office.
The provider supports people in this by ensuring their needs are regularly reviewed and that clear support plans are available for all staff that work with them so that the care provided is of a consistent quality.
Staff are supported in their caring roles through training and supervision. The staff team at this service provide support in a manner that maintains people's dignity and independence.
People were involved in decisions about the service both within the home and within the provider's wider organisation.
People are supported to pursue their interests to the extent of their ability. The provider helps them do this by balancing a person's need for safety and support against their need to live a diverse and fulfilling life in their community.
The provider regularly reviews the quality of the service and acts to make improvements where issues are identified.