CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Dimensions 43 Clayhill Road
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Staff understood safeguarding and risk management, and checks on the building and equipment were completed. Medicines were managed effectively, but some information about medicines was kept in care plans rather than being immediately available to the administering staff member.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff were trained and supported, and people received help with health needs, meals and communication. The home supported people to make choices and worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were respectful, patient and kind. They involved people in decisions, respected personal preferences and supported independence and relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs, likes and dislikes and were reviewed regularly. People had access to activities, community events, holidays and communication aids that supported contact with others.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had effective management and quality checks, and people's and families' views were sought. The manager agreed to consider recording unannounced spot checks to create an audit trail.
What inspectors found, January 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and person-centred care, with improvements in safety since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 23 and 24 November 2017. One inspector spoke with the manager and staff, spoke briefly with three people, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines, recruitment, training and other records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People appeared relaxed and safe, and staff treated them with patience, respect and kindness. Staff knew people well and supported choice, activities, healthcare and contact with family.
The previous inspection had found Requires improvement in Safe, although there was no breach. At this inspection, the earlier concerns about staff meal charges and risk assessments had been addressed. The home met all the fundamental standards.
Kind relationships
People appeared relaxed with staff and had positive, trusting relationships. Long-standing staff relationships had helped reduce challenging behaviour for some people.
“We could see from people's body language and facial expressions that interactions with staff were relaxed, friendly and respectful.” from the report
Improved safety
The home had addressed the safety concerns found at the previous inspection. Risk assessments were more detailed and linked to care plans, and staff meal charges had stopped.
“At this inspection we found the areas of concern had been addressed. The service was now providing safe care.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People were supported to go out, attend clubs and events, take holidays and keep in touch with people who mattered to them.
“People led fulfilling lives because they had access to a wide range of appropriate activities, community resources and events.” from the report
Skilled and stable staff
Staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisals. Low staff turnover helped staff know people well and provide consistent support.
“People benefitted because the service had experienced low staff turnover.” from the report
Medicine information was not always immediately available
needs fixingSome details about when medicines should be used and how a person showed they were in pain were recorded in care plans rather than being immediately accessible to the administering staff member. The home had identified this and planned to address it through the new electronic records.
“However, some detail regarding people's medicines was recorded in their care plan, not immediately accessible to the staff member administering medicines.” from the report
Staff did not always eat with people
minorA change to staff meal funding meant staff did not always eat with people. Inspectors said this reduced the friendly enjoyment of shared mealtimes.
“This meant staff did not always eat with people which detracted somewhat from the sense of friendly enjoyment of meals together.” from the report
No lift between floors
needs fixingThe home had two floors and no lift, while some people's mobility was becoming more limited. The provider had started a longer-term review and had made some adaptations, but families should ask how changing mobility needs will be managed.
“The service was provided over two floors but did not have a lift.” from the report
- 01Has the new electronic care-record system been fully introduced, and can staff immediately see each person's medicine guidance?
- 02How do staff record and respond to signs of pain or the circumstances in which a person's PRN medicine should be given?
- 03How would you support someone if their mobility worsened, given that the home has two floors and no lift?
- 04How often do staff eat with residents now, and how are shared mealtimes made enjoyable?
- 05How are unannounced manager spot checks recorded and followed up?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five areas, using observations, discussions and samples of care, medicines, recruitment, training and other records; it was carried out on 23 and 24 November 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 January 2018 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 43 Clayhill Road
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
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
42 live-in carers within about an hour of West Berkshire
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 36 can care for a couple. 14 years' experience on average.
“Titus has compassion, patience, a great sense of humour and a very professional attitude.”
“Barbara treated my mother-in-law with enormous love and compassion and provided an environment where she could feel safe and seen”
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.