This inspection took place on 20 October 2016 and was unannounced.

Dimensions 7 School Drive is a care home for up to five adults. The service specialises in providing support to people who have learning and physical disabilities.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People were kept safe from potential abuse and harm by staff who understood how to identify the various types of abuse and knew who to report any concerns to. Staff were trained and supported to meet the needs of people who lived at the home. Employment checks had been completed on staff to make sure they were suitable to work at the home. They were supported in their roles and attended training which was relevant to the needs of the people they cared for.

Staff were aware of any risks to people and were available when people needed assistance, so that risks to people’s safety were reduced. People’s medicines were managed safely. We saw medicines were stored correctly in locked cabinets and there was a clear process for recording and daily checks were in place so that all medicines could be accounted for.

People were asked for their consent for care and were provided with care that protected their freedom and promoted their rights. Staff asked people for their permission before care was provided and gave people choices about their support. Where people had not got mental capacity the provider had engaged relatives and best interest meetings to represent people’s wishes.

People were provided with support to maintain good health and nutrition. We saw people had food and drink they enjoyed. The advice of appropriate health care professionals was sought and followed where needed. People's individual needs and preferences were kept under review.

Staff had caring relationships with people and knew each person’s individual preferences and needs well. Relatives felt staff treated their family member with kindness and they felt involved in their care. On many occasions staff respected people’s privacy and personal space. However we heard some staff did not always respect people’s dignity, over lunch time some staff discussed people’s care in front of other people living at the home. The registered manager took action and addressed this lack of respect with the staff members concerned. Staff worked flexibly to provide people with good support. They encouraged people to maintain relationships that were important to them.

Relatives and people living at the home were assisted in how to make a complaint or raise a concern and felt happy to discuss it with the registered manager.

The registered manager and the provider demonstrated good management and leadership. The quality of the service was audited and action was taken where improvements were needed. There was open communication between the registered manager, relatives and staff. Relatives and staff were comfortable to make suggestions for improving people's individual care and were listened to. Staff understood what was expected of them and were supported through training and discussions with their managers. Regular checks were undertaken on the quality of the care by the provider and registered manager and actions were taken to develop the home further.

We inspected School Drive but we were unable to speak with people who lived at the home. This was because their communication difficulties meant they were unable to communicate with us. We spoke with two of the staff on duty and the deputy manager. We spent some time in communal areas and observed the interaction between staff and people who used the service.

We looked at the care records for two people and other supporting documents for the service. Consent had been obtained from people before care and treatment had been provided. Alternative arrangements had been made to support people who were unable to consent to their treatment or support. Staff told us they: “Always ask people if they are happy with me giving care before I give it”. “We have got to know people very well here so we know if they are not happy with anything”.

People’s needs had been assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. Staff told us they were aware of each person’s needs and how to give care and support to meet those needs.

We saw that staff were kind and caring in their approach to people who lived in the home. Staff received support through staff meetings, staff supervision and training. This made sure that all staff had suitable skills so they provided consistent care to people who lived at the home.

Pictorial complaints procedures had been made available to help people should they wish to make a complaint

We were unable to speak with people who used the service due to their complex needs. We gathered evidence of people’s experiences of the service by reviewing complaints logs, care records and reviews of people’s care which involved people’s relatives and relevant professionals. We found that people were supported to make everyday decisions by staff at the home. People’s views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was provided and delivered in relation to their care.

People’s needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan.

We found that people who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse. We saw that staff had a kind and caring approach towards people they supported.

People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff.

We found that the provider had systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.