You are here

Dimensions 2 Buckby Lane Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 18 September 2013
Date of Publication: 19 October 2013
Inspection Report published 19 October 2013 PDF

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

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 18 September 2013, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with staff and reviewed information given to us by the provider.

Our judgement

People’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

Reasons for our judgement

People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. We saw that people’s care plans included information about how they communicated their wishes. Staff told us that two people had a little verbal communication and some personally adapted Makaton was used. Staff were sometimes taken by the people supported, to the item or activity which they wanted. We saw examples of people communicating like this and saw that staff responded appropriately. Staff showed us a range of meal photographs that were used to get peoples choices when planning the menus. We saw one person being supported to eat his lunch in accordance with his care plan. The staff member was aware of his needs in detail and supported him appropriately to maintain his dignity. One person’s views had been sought about a medical test. He had declined the test and this had been respected.

Throughout the day we saw staff actively communicating with the people they were supporting. Staff sought the wishes of the person and acted on these. Interactions were positive and respectful of individuals. Staff described how they supported and involved particular individuals and this matched what was in the care plans. We saw a document on people’s files relating to information sharing with family. Where possible, people’s indications of consent to this, had been identified and recorded.

The care plans described people’s wishes about how their care should be provided, based on expressed views or preferences identified in the course of day to day care. They also noted whether any ‘advance decisions’ about care, were in place. Advance decisions are where a person or their representative has formally recorded their wishes regarding aspects of their care, in advance. Care plans identified where an ‘appointee’, ‘deputy’ or the ‘Court of Protection’ were involved in people’s care decision-making. These people can make decisions on behalf of the people supported, where they do not to have the capacity to make these themselves.