Dimensions Somerset Northmead House

The following is CQC's published account of its assessment, published 12 February 2026. References to “we” mean CQC. It describes findings at that time.

Date of assessment 04 to 24 December 2025. Dimensions Somerset Northmead House is a residential short-break service supporting autistic people and people with a learning disability. At the time of our assessment 5 people were using the service.

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.

The assessment was carried out due the age of the rating and focused on all 5 key questions. At our last inspection the service was rated good. At this assessment the service remains good.

People were safe and received personalised care from staff who knew them well. Relatives consistently told us they trusted the service and felt their family members were safe and well cared for. Staff understood safeguarding procedures and there were systems to learn from incidents. Medicines were managed safely, and infection prevention and control measures were in place. The environment was clean, although some areas were tired and refurbishment plans were underway.

Care was effective. Staff sought consent and followed decision-specific mental capacity assessments and best interest processes. People’s health needs were met through partnership working with health professionals. Staff had the skills and training to support people’s individual needs, including complex health conditions. People were supported to eat and drink well and encouraged to lead healthy lifestyles.

The service was caring. People were treated with dignity and respect, and staff promoted independence and choice. Relatives described staff as “Kind” and “Amazing”, and our observations showed warm, compassionate interactions. Staff felt supported and valued, and there were systems to promote wellbeing.

Care was responsive. People received person-centred care and were involved in decisions about their support. Care plans reflected individual needs, preferences and communication requirements. The service promoted equality and diversity and adapted the environment to meet accessibility needs, such as installing a lower kitchen worksurface for people who used a wheelchair. One care plan required more detail about an aspect of 1 person’s support, and the registered manager agreed to address this.

The service was well-led. There was a positive culture and strong leadership. Staff and relatives spoke highly of the registered manager. Governance systems were in place to monitor quality and safety, although formal infection control audits were not yet embedded. The provider valued diversity and inclusion, and staff felt confident to raise concerns. The service worked in partnership with families and the local community. Relatives suggested improving written communication, and the manager was exploring ways to strengthen this.