You are here

Dimensions 2 Buckby Lane Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 28 June 2012
Date of Publication: 31 July 2012
Inspection Report published 31 July 2012 PDF

The service should have quality checking systems to manage risks and assure the health, welfare and safety of people who receive care (outcome 16)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Benefit from safe quality care, treatment and support, due to effective decision making and the management of risks to their health, welfare and safety.

How this check was done

Our judgement

The provider had an effective system in place to identify, assess and manage risks to the health, safety and welfare of the people using the service and others. We found that Dimensions – 2 Buckby Lane was meeting this standard.

User experience

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. This was because the people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences.

Other evidence

People who use the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and they were acted on.

We were shown the internal audit that takes place every three months; this followed standards set by Dimensions – the provider, and linked in closely with the Care Quality Commission essential standards. Areas of concerns were identified in the internal audit and this triggered the creation of an improvement log. The improvement log detailed what was wrong, why it was wrong, what needed to be done to put it right, who was responsible and when the improvement needed to be done by. We saw the last three audits and the current improvement log which showed that areas that had been identified as a concern were currently being addressed.

We were shown the national 2011 ’customer satisfaction’ survey which was sent out to all residents and their families. It was clear and pictorial so that the residents were able to complete it. We were told that if a resident required assistance to complete the form then an independent person would be contacted to assist such as a family member or friend rather than a staff member. This meant that staff did not have an undue influence on the results of the survey. This survey was completed annually and the results analysed at head office. The results were fed back to each of the homes and the manager then considered any improvements that were required. The manager told us that they had a ‘resource ring’ available to them such as a ‘best practice coach’ and a ‘performance coach’ who would advise on how to implement any changes.

Residents and their families were involved in how the home was run; the residents had meetings to make decisions about changes made in the home, such as what colour the kitchen was going to be painted. This was recorded as a formal meeting in February 2012 however there had been no formal meetings since. The manager explained that it was the intention to have formal monthly residents’ meetings, but that many of the meetings and decisions were made in a less formal setting which hadn’t been recorded.

We were given examples where each resident had chosen how to decorate the bathrooms.