You are here

Archived: Dimensions 50 Fordbridge Road Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 6 September 2016

This was an unannounced inspection that took place on 13 July 2016.

Dimensions 50 Fordbridge Road is a care home which provides accommodation and personal care for up to eight people, who are living with a learning disability and have complex needs such as epilepsy and cerebral palsy. At the time of our inspection there were five people living there. People living at the home had various degrees of communication skills; they were unable to take part in a full discussion with us but we were able to engage with them and discuss their view points about the home. The home is a detached house with communal lounge, dining room, kitchen and bathroom facilities which people used. The accommodation is provided over two floors that were accessible by stairs and a lift. There was also a spacious and secure garden for people to use.

We had been informed by the provider that the home was closing down. Arrangements were beginning to be put in place for people for the smooth transition of moving out of the home. People and their relatives were involved in these decisions and their preferences and choices were respected. We conducted the inspection to review people’s care and support needs during this transitional period.

The home did not have a registered manager in place. ‘A registered manager 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.’ The provider had arranged temporary management coverage at the home. We have been informed the provider has submitted an application to be registered as manager with Care Quality Commission (CQC).

People and relative told us they were safe at the home. Staff had a good understanding about the signs of abuse and were aware of what to do if they suspected abuse was taking place. There were systems and processes in place to protect people from harm.

There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed who had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet people’s needs. Recruitment practices were safe and relevant checks had been completed before staff started work.

Medicines were managed, stored and disposed of safely. Any changes to people’s medicines were prescribed by the person’s GP and administered appropriately.

Fire safety arrangements and risk assessments for the environment were in place to help keep people safe. The service had a contingency plan that identified how the home would function in the event of an unforeseeable emergency such as fire, adverse weather conditions, flooding or power cuts.

Staff were up to date with current guidance to support people to make decisions. Staff had a clear understanding of Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) as well as their responsibilities in respect of this.

The provider ensured staff had the skills and experience which were necessary to carry out their role. Staff had received appropriate support that promoted their development. The staff team were knowledgeable about people’s care needs. People told us they felt supported by staff.

People had enough to eat and drink and there were arrangements in place to identify and support people who were nutritionally at risk. People were supported to have access to healthcare services and healthcare professionals were involved in the regular monitoring of their well-being. The provider worked effectively with healthcare professionals and was pro-active in referring people for assessment or treatment.

Staff treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. People’s preferences, likes and dislikes had been taken into consideration and support was provided in accordance with people’s wishes. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and promoted when personal care was undertaken.

Peop

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 6 September 2016

The service was safe.

People had risk assessments based on their individual care and support needs.

There were effective safeguarding procedures in place to protect people from potential abuse. Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities.

Recruitment practices were safe and relevant checks had been completed before staff commenced work.

There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to keep people safe and to respond to their needs.

Medicines were administered, stored and disposed of safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 6 September 2016

The service was effective.

People’s care and support promoted their well-being in accordance to their needs. People were supported to have access to healthcare services and professionals were involved in the regular monitoring of their well-being.

Staff understood and knew how to apply legislation that supported people to consent to care and treatment.

People were supported by staff who had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet their assessed needs.

People had enough to eat and drink and there were arrangements in place to identify and support people who were nutritionally at risk.

Caring

Good

Updated 6 September 2016

The service was caring.

Staff treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. People’s privacy were respected and promoted.

Staff were cheerful and caring towards people.

People’s preferences, likes and dislikes had been taken into consideration and support was provided in accordance with people’s wishes. People’s relatives and friends were able to visit when they wished.

Responsive

Good

Updated 6 September 2016

The service was responsive.

People’s needs were assessed when they entered the home and on a continuous basis. Information regarding people’s treatment, care and support was reviewed regularly.

People had access to activities that were important and relevant to them. People were protected from social isolation and there were a range of activities available within the home and community.

People were encouraged to voice their concerns or complaints about the home. Suggestions, concerns and complaints were used as an opportunity to learn and improve the service people received.

Arrangements were in place when people moved between services.

Well-led

Good

Updated 6 September 2016

The service was well- led.

The provider actively sought, encouraged and supported people’s and staffs involvement in the improvement of the service.

People told us the staff were friendly, supportive and management were always visible and approachable.

The provider had systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of care and support people received.