Dimmingsdale Bank

Updated 6 January 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 24 November 2017 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector.

As part of planning the inspection we reviewed any information we held about the service. We also checked if the provider had sent us any notifications. These contain details of events and incidents the provider is required to notify us about by law, including unexpected deaths and injuries occurring to people receiving care. We used this information to plan what areas we were going to focus on during our inspection visit.

During our inspection visit we spoke with three people who used the service. We spoke with the registered manager and four support workers. We sampled the records including three people’s care plans, staffing records, complaints, medication and quality monitoring. We spoke with the relatives of three people on the telephone. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

Updated 6 January 2018

Dimmingsdale Bank provides accommodation with personal care for adults with learning disabilities, autistic spectrum disorder or mental health needs. At the time of our inspection the service was supporting six people. At the last inspection, the service was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.

People we spoke with told us that they felt safe in the home. Assessments identified how staff were to support people from any risk of harm presented by their conditions. People were protected from abuse by staff who knew how to recognise if a person was experiencing or at risk of abuse. People were supported by enough suitable staff to meet their care needs and keep them safe. People were supported to take their medications safely. There were effective practices and policies to prevent and control the spread of infection. Staff maintained records of harmful incidents such as falls. This enabled them to identify any trends and how the risk of them happening again may be reduced.

People we spoke with told us that staff were good at meeting their needs. People’s needs had been assessed and plans were in place to provide safe and effective care. People had been involved in developing their care plans to ensure they reflected their needs and wishes. The needs of people were met consistently by staff who had the right knowledge and skills. People were supported to receive food and drinks they enjoyed. Staff communicated effectively between themselves and with other organisations. People were supported to live healthier lives and have access to other professionals. The premises were suitable to meet the needs of the people who used the service. Staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s rights to choose how they lived their lives and respected their decisions.

People who used the service told us that staff were caring. Consistent staffing had enabled people to develop meaningful relationships with the staff who supported them. People were supported to express their views and staff were skilled at giving people the information and explanations they needed and the time to make decisions. This helped people to feel listened to and included in how the service was run. People were supported to lead as independent a life as possible while remaining safe. Staff respected people’s privacy and were discreet when people required support with personal care.

Staff responded promptly to people’s needs and were knowledgeable about the activities that people enjoyed. People’s changing care needs were identified promptly and regularly reviewed with the person. There was a range of ways for people to feed back any concerns they may have. Staff took action in response to information shared in order to improve the support people received. People had the opportunity to discuss their end of life wishes if they wanted.

People we spoke with, and their relatives, told us that they felt the service was well run. The registered manager could explain the principles of promoting an open and transparent culture in line with their required duty of candour. The provider monitored the quality of care people received and had taken action when necessary to improve how people were supported. Systems were in place to ensure regular auditing of the service and reviews were conducted to identify trends and when further improvements were necessary. The provider had worked in partnership with other agencies so people experienced continuity of care when they visited other services.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.