Dimensions 1 Middlefield Close

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 28 August 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

About the serviceThe service is a residential care home registered to provide care for up to 5 people with a learning disability and/or autistic people. There were 5 people using the service at the time of the assessment.Who the service is for The service supports people with a learning disability and/or autistic people.Key findingsWe carried out this assessment on 17 August 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.We assessed the service against ‘Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found the service was meeting this guidance, which meant people were supported in a way which maximised their dignity, choice and access to their local community.People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA and understood their responsibilities. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen.People were not subjected to unlawful or excessive restrictions, and they had choice, control and freedom over their lives as much as possible. One relative told us, “[Person] has high support and dependency needs, but the staff always accommodate [person’s] requests whenever possible.” A healthcare professional commented, “The staff have taken a wonderful approach to encouraging his participation throughout all of his care and support activities.” A member of staff told us, “Each person has the right to make wrong decisions. We make sure the decisions go through the best interest process.”People were supported by enough staff with the appropriate skills and knowledge, and staff were recruited safely. Risks were assessed, regularly reviewed, and people were involved in the process. Care records were person-centred, included details on how to keep people safe, and clearly highlighted people’s preferences. People’s medicines were managed safely and regularly reviewed by healthcare professionals.Staff understood how to recognise potential signs of abuse and how to report these. One member of staff told us, “Neglect [could be] ignoring [or] not meeting the bare minimum needs of residents. You have a duty of care to act upon it. [I would] report it to your line manager or whistleblow, social services, the police. [There are] loads of channels.”There were systems in place to ensure the environment was safe for people, and adaptations had been made so people were able to move around easily. Whilst the environment was safe, we found some areas needed redecorating. Leaders told us they had already raised this with the landlord and were awaiting further plans. Regular health and safety checks were undertaken by suitably qualified professionals, for example mobility aids and fire safety equipment.People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the service and reviewed when they moved in. Assessments considered the person’s spiritual, social and healthcare needs and preferences, such as communication needs. Staff used nationally recognised tools when reviewing people’s care. A member of staff told us, “If someone’s vitals are unusual, if it’s way below normal, there’s a plan in place. We know when to call the emergency services.”Staff received training in line with national requirements and staff worked well with healthcare professionals to monitor and improve people’s outcomes. One healthcare professional told us, “I do not have any concerns regarding the quality of care and support provided by the service. During my involvement, the individual appeared content, comfortable, and well supported, and staff demonstrated a good understanding of his needs and how best to meet them.”Leaders completed staff supervisions to monitor performance and provide support, and staff told us they felt valued by the registered manager. Staff told us the service was inclusive, that they worked as a team, and that leaders understood barriers people and staff may face. One member of staff told us, “We do work well together. There’s good teamwork.” Another member of staff said, “I do feel valued. [The registered manager] thanked me the other day because I came up with an idea. We solved that problem and she thanked me.”Leaders regularly completed audits to monitor the quality of care and look at ways to improve the service. There was a complaints procedure in place and when the service received complaints, they investigated these and responded appropriately. The provider understood their legal responsibilities and had systems in place for effective oversight. We found a culture of learning and improvement, and the provider was motivated to make the minor improvements we identified during the assessment.