Dimensions Somerset Newholme

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

People's outcomes were consistently good, and feedback we received confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Each person had a comprehensive support plan. Evidence showed the registered manager continuously looked at how improvements could be made to make sure people received personalised care.

People’s needs, including communication needs, were fully assessed and met. One relative told us, “I do attend reviews and they always call me if anything untoward is happening.”

Staff carried out regular reviews with people to make sure assessments and care plans continued to be reflective of people’s current needs and wishes.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Staff knew people well. They were able to tell us how people would express consent and how individuals made choices.

People received care with their consent, or in their best interests. We saw staff supported people to make as many of their own decisions as possible. Staff knew about people’s ability to make decisions through verbal or non-verbal means, and this was well documented.

At the last inspection we recommended that the provider seeks advice and guidance from a reputable source to ensure all aspects of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were met. At this assessment we found that people’s human rights were respected. The service worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff demonstrated good practice around assessing mental capacity, supporting decision-making and best interest decision-making. Relatives were consulted when best interest decisions were needed. Accurate records were kept which showed how and when people made their own decisions and when these were made by others close to them.