Archived: Dimensions 237 Courthouse Road

At our inspection on 30 December 2013 we found the provider had completed all required recruitment checks for staff employed by the service, such as information regarding the person's good character and identification checks.

We did not speak with people who use the service at this inspection. We discussed recruitment procedures and checks with the registered manager. Where we found gaps in employment history the manager was able to provide a satisfactory written explanation for these. This meant the provider was assured that people were cared for by suitable staff.

Records could be located promptly and were stored appropriately. Information documented was up to date. Documents were retained and disposed of appropriately.

We spoke with two of the people who use the service, who told us staff sought their consent before they provided support. We spoke with two relatives of people who use the service. One relative said 'X will tell them what they want. They are very happy here, and have a good relationship with the staff.' Two people who use the service were unable to communicate verbally with us, but we observed staff interacted appropriately to ensure they acted in accordance with the person's consent.

We observed the home was clean, and saw the provider carried out checks to ensure the infection control policy was followed appropriately. People who use the service carried out some cleaning duties, supervised by staff. One person said 'I sweep the floor'. One relative told us 'I've never seen anything dirty. It always looks clean.'

Documents showed that appropriate maintenance and servicing was carried out, in accordance with manufacturers' and the provider's guidance. For example we saw the hoist was checked by external contractors. We spoke with two support workers, who told us their servicing team 'come out every two weeks, but they do emergency repairs quicker.' The home was suitable for the mobility and other needs of the people who live there.

We were told the provider undertook appropriate recruitment checks, and saw evidence of this in one set of recruitment records for a member of staff. However, we were unable to view further recruitment records. This meant we were unable to verify that people who use the service were protected from inappropriate care or support, as we did not see the recruitment safeguards required in a selection of staff files.

We saw that records were stored appropriately, either in lockable cabinets or electronically with password protected access. However, not all records we required to see were readily available, nor could they be located promptly.

Care records showed that people were involved in making decisions about how they wished to be supported, and their individual choice respected. We observed that people were regularly asked what they would like to do and staff supported their independence. The care given by staff reflected what was documented in people's care and support plans, and these were regularly reviewed and updated.

People's privacy and dignity was respected and we observed staff speaking with people in a caring manner. People with communication difficulties were well supported and staff showed a clear understanding of individual needs.

People using the service told us that they felt safe and had no concerns. We noted that the premises and environment promoted people's safety and security.

We saw that there were enough suitably trained and experienced staff to meet the needs of people using the service. Staff were well supported and had access to various education programmes to meet the needs of people.

This home had various methods that were used to ensure the quality of the care was assessed. Meetings, reviews and management audits were in place and records were available.