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 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 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

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

Reasons for our judgement

People’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

People’s care files included ‘communication passports’ describing their individual methods of communication and staff were familiar with these. We saw staff working in a person-centred way and engaging positively with each of the three people in the home. Incidents that had arisen had been recorded and monitored by the manager, although there were none recorded since February 2013. Staff confirmed that this was an accurate reflection of the situation. The care files included support plans detailing people’s needs and how these should be met. Other documents provided more detail on people’s preferred daily routines and what was ‘important to’ and ‘important for’, them. The care files contained lots of references to encouraging involvement and decision making. They also included some goals and targets and progress on these was monitored at reviews. Care plans were supported by relevant risk assessments. The manager was in the process of updating these. Staff told us the individual support plans were then going to be reviewed.

People’s files also included any healthcare needs and records of attendance at healthcare appointments. An antibiotic allergy for one person was clearly documented. Appropriate support had been sought from external healthcare specialists, including the speech and language team and occupational therapists. Where manual handling support was required this was clearly defined. The method of securing of one person’s wheelchair in a vehicle was described, supported by a series of photographs. The provider may find it useful to note that healthcare records were not always systematically filed, making it hard to be sure when people last attended routine healthcare appointments.

We saw that people had opportunities to engage in a wide range of activities within the home and the local community. The three people in the home had lived together for some years and enjoyed some activities as a group or in pairs, as well as individually. Some friendships had also developed with people in the provider’s other services. Staff enabled people to meet up and enjoy activities together where this was the case. For example, one person in the home had recently been to a motor racing event with a friend from another service and others had been to the theatre together. People in the home went on holidays which they were involved in choosing. Each person had a “My Ideal Day” sheet in their file which identified many of the regular activities and events in which they took part. Although the home had only one driver in the team, staff told us the manager and assistant manager sometimes drove people to activities as well. One person had his own adapted vehicle and the home also used public transport and the ‘Dial-a-Ride’ service. People’s spiritual needs were also supported through church attendance. One person indicated that he enjoyed living at the home and the activities he took part in.

There were arrangements in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies. We were shown the emergency information available to staff. This included the contact numbers of staff and senior management, the day and night-time evacuation plans for the home and hospital information sheets for each person. The emergency contact numbers for household utilities and the location of master switches and stop-cocks were also provided. In an emergency people would be evacuated to some of the provider’s local supported living houses, in the first instance. The emergency plan had last been reviewed in April 2012. The provider may find it useful to note that the emergency plan information was contained within two separate sets of documents and therefore may not be as readily accessible as it should be, in the event of an emergency.

The Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS), were only used when it was considered to be in the person’s best inter