CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Dimensions 1 Middlefield Close
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong COVID-19 controls, with some PPE practice needing improvement.
The inspection took place on 2 March 2021. It was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was announced in advance.
Inspectors found that people were supported to keep in touch with family and understand changes caused by the pandemic. The home used its garden and outside care park area for socially distanced visits.
The home had appropriate high-level PPE, specialist training and support for aerosol-generating procedures. Staff were also supported with shielding, testing and vaccination arrangements.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a rated assessment of all five areas of care.
Keeping people connected
People were supported to stay in contact with loved ones by phone. The garden and outside area were used for socially distanced family visits.
“People maintained contact with their loved ones via regular phone calls and were supported to understand the changes in their day to day lives related to COVID-19.” from the report
Specialist infection support
The home had specialist support and training for aerosol-generating procedures. It also had appropriate high-level PPE and guidance about ventilation.
“The registered manager ensured appropriate clinical support around aerosol generating procedures (AGPs) was in place for those who required that kind of support.” from the report
Supportive management
Staff said they felt supported by the management and provider and worked well as a team. Staff who were more vulnerable to COVID-19 were supported to assess their individual circumstances.
“Staff told us they felt supported by the management and the provider and worked well as a team.” from the report
PPE was not always used correctly
needs fixingSome staff did not dispose of face masks correctly during breaks or follow the bare-below-the-elbow rule at all times. The manager reminded staff and requested further competency checks with the specialist infection prevention nurse.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
- 01What was found in the additional PPE competency re-assessments with the infection prevention and control specialist nurse?
- 02How do you now check that staff dispose of face masks correctly during breaks?
- 03How do you make sure staff follow the bare-below-the-elbow rule at all times?
- 04What training and clinical support are currently provided for aerosol-generating procedures?
- 05How will people be supported to keep in contact with family if visiting arrangements change?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic; it did not provide ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 April 2021 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, April 2019
Dimensions 1 Middlefield Close was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some wear and tear and limited end-of-life planning.
This was a fully comprehensive inspection on 28 March 2019. Inspectors observed care, spoke with managers, staff, a therapist and a relative, and reviewed care plans, medicine records, complaints, incidents and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good. People appeared relaxed and happy. Staff knew people well, supported their choices and helped them take part in activities, household tasks, healthcare and family life.
Inspectors found safe staffing, recruitment, medicine systems and risk plans. They also found that staff training, consent arrangements, food support and healthcare were effective.
There were some areas to improve. The home showed wear and tear, cleaning checks were planned to become more frequent, and end-of-life wishes were recorded only in basic detail.
Personalised daily life
People's routines were based on their own wishes rather than staff convenience. They were supported with hobbies, outings, household tasks and holidays.
“The routines were set by people's needs and wishes rather than those of the staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well and used kindness, humour and appropriate affection. They respected privacy and supported people to make choices.
“People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff knocked on people's doors before entering and respected people's right to have quiet time alone if they wished.” from the report
Safe care
Risks were assessed and reviewed. Staff understood how to support people with choking risks and epilepsy, and medicine records were accurate.
“People received safe care because any risks had been assessed and staff knew what action to take to minimise these risks.” from the report
Good activities and relationships
People took part in activities suited to their interests and were supported to keep in touch with relatives. Families were welcomed into the home.
“There were a range of leisure opportunities on offer and people had gone to local places of interest and events.” from the report
Management oversight
Managers carried out audits and checks, reviewed incidents and sought feedback. Staff said managers were approachable and supportive.
“The registered manager and provider had systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Wear and tear
minorInspectors saw some wear and tear in the home. A redecoration and repairs plan was in place, but the housing association had been slow to respond.
“The home showed some wear and tear, but the registered manager had an ongoing plan for re decoration and repairs.” from the report
Cleaning checks
minorThe home was clean and staff followed a cleaning schedule. However, the manager said more frequent checks were planned so standards could be checked daily.
“The registered manager carried out checks but told us they planned to conduct more frequent checks to ensure standards were maintained daily.” from the report
End-of-life wishes
needs fixingSupport plans included only basic information about people's wishes after death. The manager agreed to add more detail, although no one was receiving end-of-life care at the inspection.
“People's support plans did contain basic information about people's wishes after their death.” from the report
- 01What repairs and redecoration have been completed since the inspection, and what work is still outstanding?
- 02How often are cleaning standards now checked and what happens if a problem is found?
- 03How are each person's end-of-life wishes recorded, reviewed and shared with staff?
- 04How would you support someone with epilepsy or a choking risk, and how are these plans kept up to date?
- 05How do you make sure activities and daily routines continue to reflect each person's choices?
This was a fully comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the care, accommodation and management of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 April 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Dimensions 1 Middlefield Close
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Dimensions 1 Middlefield Close →
- April 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Dimensions 1 Middlefield Close →
- October 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 January 2012.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.