You are here

Archived: Dimensions 82-84 Booth Road Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 21 October 2016

This inspection took place on 7 and 20 September 2016 and was unannounced. The service met all of the regulations we inspected against at our last inspection in September 2013.

Dimensions 82-84 Booth Road is a care home for up to eight adults. There was one vacancy when we inspected. The service specialises in providing support to people who have a learning disability or who are on the autistic spectrum. Autism is a lifelong condition that affects how a person communicates with and relates to other people, and how they experience the world around them.

There was a registered manager in post at the service. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the 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.

People and their representatives provided good overall feedback about the service. We found that the service was working hard to improve people’s quality of life. For example, people received good support to go out lots. There were ongoing efforts to find activities that people liked. Some people had been on holiday, in line with agreed personal goals and the provider’s current business plan.

Staff worked well together and came across as motivated to provide people with good support. People were treated in a respectful and friendly manner. They were encouraged to maintain and develop skills and independence, and were supported with relationships that were important to them.

People were provided with support to maintain good health and nutrition. The advice of appropriate healthcare professionals was sought and followed where needed. People’s individual needs and preferences were kept under review. Action was taken to address individual risks to people using the service, and safeguarding procedures were properly used to help keep people safe.

There was a positive and empowering culture at the service. The registered manager and the provider demonstrated good management and leadership. The quality of the service was audited and action was taken where improvements were needed, including in response to our feedback. This all helped to assure that high quality care was being provided.

However, the service was not consistently safe. Whilst enough staff were working at all times, there were avoidable safety risks to people using the service arising from some staff working long hours across consecutive days. Systems had not ensured that appropriate written references were always obtained for new staff. Whilst people received their medicines as prescribed, a number of people’s as-needed medicines lacked specific guidance around offering it to them.

We made one recommendation in this report based on an area for development identified at this inspection. This was around developing staff skills in respect of recognising and responding to people’s individual communications.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 21 October 2016

The service was not consistently safe. Whilst enough staff were working at all times, there were avoidable safety risks to people using the service arising from some staff working long hours across consecutive days.

Whilst people received their medicines as prescribed, a number of people’s as-needed medicines lacked specific guidance around offering it to them.

Systems did not ensure that appropriate written references were always obtained for new staff.

However, action was taken to address individual risks to people using the service, and safeguarding procedures were properly used to help keep people safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 21 October 2016

The service was effective. People were provided with support to maintain good health and nutrition. The advice of appropriate healthcare professionals was sought and followed where needed.

Staff received support and training that equipped them to support and meet people’s needs, although this needed completion in a few service-specific areas.

The service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Caring

Good

Updated 21 October 2016

The service was caring. People were treated in a respectful and friendly manner. The service supported people to attend to their appearance and keep clean.

The service encouraged people to maintain and develop skills and independence. People were supported to have a community presence and maintain or develop relationships.

We made a recommendation around developing staff skills in respect of recognising and responding to people’s individual communications.

Responsive

Good

Updated 21 October 2016

The service was responsive. People’s individual needs and preferences were kept under review and acted on. There were reasonable procedures in place to listen to and address concerns and complaints.

There were ongoing efforts to find activities, in the service and in the community, that people liked. Some people had been on holiday, in line with agreed personal goals.

Well-led

Good

Updated 21 October 2016

The service was well-led. There was a positive and empowering culture at the service. The registered manager and the provider demonstrated good management and leadership. Staff worked well together and came across as motivated to provide people with good support.

There were a number of ways in which the quality of the service was audited and scrutinised. Action was taken where improvements were needed. This all helped to assure that high quality care was being provided.