You are here

Dimensions 2 Buckby Lane Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 3 July 2014
Date of Publication: 19 August 2014
Inspection Report published 19 August 2014 PDF

People should get safe and appropriate care that meets their needs and supports their rights (outcome 4)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Experience effective, safe and appropriate care, treatment and support that meets their needs and protects their rights.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 3 July 2014, observed how people were being cared for and spoke with one or more advocates for people who use services. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

Our judgement

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare.

Reasons for our judgement

On the day of our inspection there were three people being supported by the service. One person was not able to communicate verbally with us, whilst the other two had limited verbal communication. We were able to find out about each person’s experience of the service by observing care and talking with their families and appointees.

The provider had protected people against the risks of receiving unsafe or inappropriate care because their current support plans and risk assessments had been reviewed to ensure they were still appropriate. The registered manager told us that people’s support plans should be reviewed annually or more frequently when required. These reviews should involve the person, their representative, health professionals and the person’s key worker. A key worker is a member of staff who has overall responsibility for the provision of the person’s care.

We looked at all of the care and support plans for people living in the service. We saw their support plans documented circumstances when the person needed support and what they could do for themselves. There was guidance for staff on how to best provide the required support and promote people’s independence. Support plans were person centred and had been written with the individual and where appropriate their family. There were sections entitled ‘What works for me’, ‘What doesn’t work for me’, ‘How to support me well’ and ‘Dreams for the future’. This meant that the assessment, planning and delivery of people's care had ben developed with them and those acting on their behalf.

We found that two people’s detailed support plans and person centred reviews had not been updated in accordance with the provider’s policy. However, we found that an action plan had been created by the registered manager to ensure that all of these would be fully reviewed before 30 September 2014. The registered manager had been appointed in April 2014 and had identified the requirement to update support plans. They told us that they had spoken with staff in supervisions to ascertain if people had any changes in their needs which required to be addressed immediately. Staff we spoke with told us that changing needs had been addressed in risk assessments, which we saw had been completed in September and October 2013. We noted that the provider had identified that one person required an updated assessment by a speech and language therapist which they were in the process of arranging. This meant that the provider had reduced the risk of people receiving unsafe or inappropriate care by assessing their needs.

All staff we spoke with told us that they had been updated with any changes in people’s needs by reading the service’ communication book before each shift. We read the book and saw that significant changes had been recorded. We examined people’s health booklets, which also contained their health appointments. For example on the day of inspection one person had an appointment with their GP. We saw that staff had discovered a person required treatment for a skin condition and had quickly made an appointment. During our inspection one person received treatment from a chiropodist. We spoke with the chiropodist who told us that they visited the service every six weeks. They told us that care staff notified them quickly when people required treatment. For example, the chiropodist had been notified immediately when one person had developed an infection. We saw that one person had a phobia in relation to scalpels so alternative solutions had been found using less intrusive treatments. This meant staff had responded promptly to identified changes to people’s needs

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Each person had a support plan which identified and assessed the risks associated with the activities of daily living, including the action needed to reduce risks. For example there were risk assessments to support people