You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 19 September 2018

Dimensions 27 Sampson Avenue is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up to six people. There were five people using the service at the start of this inspection. The service specialises in the care and support of people with learning and physical disabilities. It is operated by a national care provider.

The service has a registered manager, which 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.

This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection, to make sure the service was providing care that is safe, caring, effective, responsive to people's needs, and well-led. It was the first time the service has been inspected under our ratings inspection process, having been dormant for a period until people moved into the service in the summer of 2017.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

At this inspection we found the service was not consistently safe. Equipment and premises were not consistently checked to ensure environment safety risks were addressed. We had to remind the service that a professional check of the electric wiring was a few months out-of-date. Staff checks of some safety matters including wheelchairs, emergency lighting and first aid boxes had not recently occurred, and the last fire drill had not been documented.

Training on the prevention of choking was not complete for all permanent staff, despite some people using the service being identified as at risk of choking. Systems to check agency staff had received this training had not been followed.

We identified a few infection control risks during the inspection visit. Comprehensive infection control audits were not occurring, to help identify and eliminate poor practices.

We found the decoration of some communal areas of the building to be worn or incomplete. The dining room was not adapted for people in wheelchairs to use easily. The main fridge-freezer had been faulty for over six weeks without remedy.

The registered manager sent us updates and action plans on the above concerns shortly after our visit. This helped to reduce the seriousness of our findings.

There had been good work at the service this year to identify and meet some people’s increasing care needs. There was effective co-operative working with community professionals in support of meeting people’s health needs. Staffing levels had been increased where needed. Equipment such as more suitable wheelchairs had been acquired where appropriate.

Feedback from people, their relatives, visitors and community professionals was highly positive on how staff treated people. Staff interacted well with people regardless of some people’s complex communication needs. There were established systems of providing people with personal care support where needed. People were encouraged to make choices where possible and their consent for care was sought in line with legislation.

People were treated as distinct individuals at the service, with care and support being offered accordingly. Staff supported people to follow their interests, have appropriate mental and physical stimulation, and maintain relationships that mattered to them.

The service supported people to eat and drink eno

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 19 September 2018

The service was not consistently safe. Equipment and premises were not consistently checked to ensure the environment was safe and infection control risks eliminated.

Training on the prevention of choking was not complete for all staff, despite some people using the service being identified as at risk of choking.

Systems, processes and practices safeguarded people from abuse.

The service ensured the proper and safe use of medicines.

The service ensured sufficient numbers of suitable staff to support people to stay safe and meet their needs.

Systems were in place to ensure that ongoing learning took place when things went wrong.

Effective

Good

Updated 19 September 2018

The service was effective. People's needs were holistically assessed to help ensure the service was able to meet their specific needs.

The service made sure staff had the knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and support.

The service supported people to eat and drink enough and maintain a balanced diet.

The whole service worked in co-operation with other organisations to deliver effective care and support.

People were very well supported to live healthier lives, have access to healthcare services and receive ongoing healthcare support.

Consent was obtained before support was provided. Where anyone could not make that decision, it was assessed in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

The adaptation, design and decoration of premises was not consistently supporting people's individual needs to be met, but there were plans in place to address this.

Caring

Good

Updated 19 September 2018

The service was caring. It ensured that people were treated with kindness, respect and compassion. People's privacy and dignity was respected at all times.

As far as possible, people were supported to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care and support. Their independence was promoted.

The service supported people to develop and maintain relationships that mattered to them.

Responsive

Good

Updated 19 September 2018

The service was responsive. It enabled people to receive personalised care that addressed their needs.

The service supported the communication needs of people with a disability or sensory impairment. It supported people to follow their interests and have appropriate mental and physical stimulation.

The service listened and responded to people’s concerns and complaints.

Well-led

Good

Updated 19 September 2018

The service was well-led. It promoted a positive and inclusive culture that achieved many good outcomes for people. Staff felt supported by the management team who displayed good competency and appropriate values for their roles.

The provider had a clear vision and credible strategy to deliver high-quality care and support. It engaged with and involved stakeholders in the development of the service.

Systems at the service were designed to enable sustainability and support continuous learning and improvement.

The service worked in partnership with other agencies to support care provision and development.