CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Dimensions Somerset The Old Police House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some risk assessments had not been reviewed, some safety checks were out of date, and medicines records and storage arrangements needed improvement. The home had enough staff at the inspection and infection control arrangements were effective.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Its previous rating was carried forward when calculating the overall rating, but the report does not state that rating here.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Inspectors nevertheless observed kind and compassionate interactions and said staff respected people's privacy and dignity.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this visit. Inspectors found that staff understood people's communication needs and supported people to make choices.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers were open and acted efficiently on feedback. Audits and improvement plans identified shortfalls, and staff said they felt supported and able to raise concerns.
What inspectors found, June 2022
Dimensions Somerset The Old Police House was rated Good overall, but its Safe rating was Requires Improvement because medicines and some risk records needed improvement.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 10 May 2022. They spoke with five people through observations and interactions, five staff members and four relatives. They checked medicines for four people, care records for three people and other management records.
The home provided personal care for five people and could support up to eight. Inspectors found kind and respectful care, staff who understood people's communication needs, and support for choice, independence and activities. The home was clean, well equipped and worked with health professionals.
The main concerns were in the Safe area. Some risk assessments had not been reviewed, some safety checks were out of date, and medicines checks and handwritten changes to medicine records needed improvement. The home was rated Good overall and Well-led was Good. Safe remained Requires Improvement, as it had at the previous inspection.
Kind, individual care
Inspectors saw staff giving people patient, respectful and compassionate support. Staff understood individual communication methods and helped people make choices.
“Throughout the inspection we observed kind, relaxed, compassionate and caring interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Good leadership
Managers understood people's needs and responded openly to inspectors. Staff described a supportive culture where they could raise concerns.
“Both the registered manager and the peripatetic assistant locality manager supported the inspection.” from the report
Good infection control
The home had arrangements to keep people and visitors safe from infection, including effective use of protective equipment and testing.
“The service used effective infection, prevention and control measures to keep people safe, and staff supported people to follow them.” from the report
Support for choice and independence
Staff focused on what people could do and supported their interests, activities and choices at home and in the local area.
“Staff focused on people's strengths and promoted what they could do, so people had a fulfilling and meaningful everyday life.” from the report
Risk assessments not always reviewed
seriousSome risk assessments did not reflect people's current needs. This could mean staff were following information that was no longer correct, although inspectors said regular staff knew people well and risks were minimised.
“We were not assured that they reflected people's current needs as some of these risk assessments were found not to have been reviewed.” from the report
Medicine security and records
seriousKeys to medicine cupboards had been kept on a nearby hook, where unauthorised people could access them. Medicine receipts and handwritten changes to administration charts also needed stronger checks.
“However, the keys were kept on a hook next to the cupboard which meant they could be accessed by non-authorised staff or visitors.” from the report
Some safety checks out of date
needs fixingSome checks on the living environment and equipment were not up to date. The home said it would put this right.
“Some checks were found to not be up to date. Reassurances were provided that this would be rectified.” from the report
Specialist training still unavailable
needs fixingPeople with specific health needs were not always supported by staff with up-to-date professional training in specialist techniques. The provider had tried to obtain the training and had reduced the risks through a regularly reviewed risk assessment.
“During this inspection we saw evidence of the provider trying to access this training, but they have not been able to obtain it.” from the report
- 01Have all people's risk assessments now been reviewed, and how do you check that they reflect current needs?
- 02How are medicine cupboard keys secured now, and who can access them?
- 03How are medicine receipts and handwritten changes to medicine administration charts checked and signed?
- 04Have all overdue safety checks on the building and equipment been completed?
- 05What progress has been made in obtaining specialist training for staff supporting people with specific health needs?
This inspection covered Safe and Well-led; the other key question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection when calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 June 2022 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, August 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but safety checks and specialist staff training needed improvement.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 20 June 2018. They spoke with people, staff, a healthcare professional and relatives. They also checked care records, medicines records, staff files, training records, rotas and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, caring, responsive and well-led were all rated Good. People received personalised support from kind staff who understood their communication, choices and health needs.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found risks linked to exposed water pipes, inconsistent training for a medical procedure, one unlocked medicines cupboard and delays in some specialist training. The registered manager took immediate or planned action on several of these issues.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff being kind and patient. Staff respected people's privacy, dignity and choices, including when people communicated without speech.
“People were cared for by staff who were kind and patient.” from the report
Good understanding of safeguarding
Staff knew how to recognise possible abuse and what action to take. Recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“Every member of staff knew which external bodies to contact if no action was taken by the management to keep people safe.” from the report
Activities and choice
People were supported to choose how to spend their time and take part in activities suited to their needs, such as swimming and aromatherapy.
“People were supported to participate in a range of activities in line with their needs and wishes.” from the report
Inconsistent specialist training
seriousNew staff were sometimes taught medical techniques by longer-serving staff rather than by the relevant professionals. One staff member had been shown two different methods, creating a potential risk of harm or illness.
“This meant there was a potential risk of the person becoming unwell or being hurt.” from the report
Unsafe water pipes in storage cupboard
seriousOne person stored equipment in an unlocked cupboard with exposed pipes that could become hot. The registered manager began looking for alternative storage during the inspection.
“However, there was an unlocked cupboard with exposed water pipes which could become hot.” from the report
Medicines cupboard left unlocked
seriousOne medicines cupboard was unlocked during the inspection, creating a risk that unauthorised people or visitors could access the medicines. It was locked immediately.
“This meant there was a risk unauthorised people or visitors could access their medicine.” from the report
Some training was not yet complete
needs fixingOne staff member had not completed practical hoist training and had to be supervised. Staff also raised concerns about waiting for some essential training.
“However one member of staff had not completed the practical hoist training which meant they had to be supervised by other staff.” from the report
Health reviews needed better follow-up
needs fixingInspectors found that one person's health condition had not been reviewed by a health professional for a long time. A follow-up review had been arranged by the inspection.
“Records showed no health professional review had been carried out for a long time, however at the time of the inspection a follow up review had been arranged and booked.” from the report
- 01Has all staff training for the specific medical procedure now been provided by the relevant healthcare professionals?
- 02What action was taken to replace or secure the storage cupboard with exposed water pipes?
- 03How do you check that all medicines cupboards remain locked?
- 04Has the delayed health professional review been completed, and how are future reviews tracked?
- 05Are there now enough trained staff to support people to go out and use the minibus?
This was an unannounced inspection of the whole service and covered all five CQC questions; it was the first inspection at the location under the new provider. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 August 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 Somerset The Old Police House
2 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Dimensions Somerset The Old Police House →
- August 2018GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Dimensions Somerset The Old Police House →
- June 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 June 2017.
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
76 live-in carers within about two hours of Somerset
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 £1,370 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She looked after my mum, who can be incredibly challenging, so well and so gently, and we always felt confident that my mum was getting the best care available.”
“She was not phased by anything, she was adaptable, kind & gave us complete confidence to go away & not worry about a thing!”
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.