CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Dimensions 7 Huntley Close
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment and medicines systems, and staff who understood people's risks and emergency needs.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had relevant training and support. People had access to food, drinks and healthcare suited to their needs, and staff supported communication and informed choices.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind, patient and respectful. People were involved in their care and supported to maintain privacy, dignity and relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans described people's needs, routines and preferences in detail. People were supported with activities and complaints systems were in place, but end of life plans needed more detail.
- Well-led?
- Good
- There was a clear management structure, regular checks and feedback from people, families and professionals. The manager divided time between this home and another home.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with some repairs and more detail needed in end of life plans.
This was a fully comprehensive inspection on 13 February 2019. Inspectors observed care, spoke with the manager and staff, and reviewed care plans, recruitment files, complaints, accidents, incidents and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable training, detailed care plans and good links with health professionals. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect, and were supported to make choices and take part in activities.
The home had considerable wear and tear, including flooring and showers. This did not affect safety, but repairs and replacement were needed. Inspectors also said end of life wishes needed more detail in care plans. The overall Good rating stayed the same as at the previous inspection.
Safe care
Staff understood people's risks and the steps needed to reduce harm. There were enough staff to support people's care and activities.
“People received safe care because staff knew the risks each person faced and the actions to take to minimise these risks.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people well, responded patiently and treated them with dignity. They respected privacy and supported people to be involved in their own care.
“People were supported by kind and caring staff. Staff assisted people to be involved as much as possible in their own care.” from the report
Individual support
Care was planned around each person's needs, wishes and preferences. People were supported to communicate, make choices and take part in activities.
“Each person was treated as an individual. Their care was planned according to their individual needs, wishes and preferences.” from the report
Good oversight
The manager and provider used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor quality and make changes. Staff also worked with health and social care professionals.
“The registered manager and provider had systems in place to monitor the quality and safety of the service.” from the report
Repairs and wear
needs fixingThe home showed considerable wear and tear, including flooring and showers. This did not affect safety, but repairs or replacement were needed and progress with the housing association had been slow.
“There was considerable wear and tear which, although did not affect people's safety, required repair or replacement” from the report
End of life planning
minorCare plans included some end of life wishes, but inspectors said more detail was needed so staff would understand people's needs and wishes if this care became necessary.
“there was a need to improve the level of detail about people's end of life wishes in their care plans.” from the report
- 01What repairs or replacements are still needed in the home, and what progress has been made with the housing association?
- 02How will you record and regularly update my relative's end of life wishes?
- 03How is management support provided when the manager is dividing time between this home and another home?
- 04How will you make sure staff have the latest information in care plans, including communication needs and health guidance?
- 05What activities and community outings would be available for my relative, based on their interests and support needs?
This was a fully comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 March 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.
What inspectors found, September 2016
Dimensions 7 Huntley Close is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with no major concerns identified.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 July 2016. Inspectors spoke with a person living at the home, a staff member, managers and a relative. They observed care and checked care records, medicines records, staff files, training information and management documents.
The home supported five people with learning disabilities and other complex needs. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable risk assessments and good access to healthcare. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect, and their choices, routines and communication needs were understood.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home did not have a registered manager during the inspection, but temporary management cover was in place and an application had been submitted.
Safe staffing and medicines
There were enough staff to meet people's needs, with checks completed before staff started work. Medicines records had no gaps or errors.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people's needs safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their choices, privacy and dignity. Inspectors saw positive and compassionate interactions.
“Staff treated people with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's routines, preferences, health needs and ways of communicating. Staff used this information to provide individual support.
“People's needs were assessed when they entered the home and on a continuous basis.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People took part in activities inside and outside the home, including trips, music, baking and art. Relatives and friends were encouraged to visit.
“People had access to activities that were important and relevant to them.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no registered manager at the time of the inspection. Temporary management cover was arranged and an application had been submitted, but families should check the current position.
“The home did not have a registered manager in place.” from the report
Fire drill took longer than expected
minorA fire drill took four minutes. The assistant locality manager had identified this and planned to address it at the next team meeting.
“A fire drill conducted in July 2016 took four minutes to complete.” from the report
- 01Who is the registered manager now, and when was the registration application decided?
- 02What action was taken after the fire drill took four minutes?
- 03How are staffing levels matched to each person's needs, appointments, activities and holidays?
- 04How are people's specific dietary, epilepsy, mobility and communication needs kept up to date?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in care planning, reviews and decisions about activities?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions; inspectors also reviewed three care records, one staff file and medicines and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 September 2016 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 7 Huntley Close
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 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
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.