Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

CQC report explained · a residential care home, run by Dimensions

Dimensions 4 Matlock Close

4 Matlock Close, Barnet, EN5 2RS

Requires improvementpublished 5 January 2024, 2 years ago

Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the service was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Requires improvement
Inspectors found damaged and dirty washroom areas, concerns about some doors and fire safety, and weaknesses in medicines recording and stock control. They found no evidence that anyone had been harmed, but said people were at risk.
Effective?
Requires improvement
Staff had suitable training and supported people's health, nutrition and communication needs. However, some parts of the building were worn and did not always provide a suitably homely environment.
Caring?
Good
Staff treated people with dignity and respect, supported independence and responded calmly to people's individual needs. People and relatives were involved in decisions about care.
Responsive?
Good
Care plans were personalised and reflected people's routines, preferences and communication needs. Staff supported activities, community visits, contact with relatives and cultural or religious preferences.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
Managers and staff were approachable and knew people well, but audits and checks had not identified or dealt with important safety and medicines problems. Daily records and shift plans were also not always completed properly.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, January 2024

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care but safety, medicines and management systems were not reliable enough.

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 30 October and 1 November 2023. Inspectors met people living at the home, spoke with relatives, staff and a professional, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines, safety records, training and recruitment records.

People were treated kindly and with dignity. Staff understood people's individual communication needs, supported their choices and helped them take part in activities at home and in the community. Relatives were involved in care planning and reviews.

There were important safety problems. Some washroom equipment and fittings were dirty, damaged, rusty or had sharp edges. Medicines records and stock checks were not accurate enough. The provider's checks had not found these problems, and there were also concerns about some doors and fire safety arrangements.

The overall rating changed from Good to Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive remained Good. The provider was told to send an action plan, and CQC said it would monitor progress.

What inspectors praised
  • Kind and respectful care

    Staff treated people with dignity, explained what they were doing and supported people calmly. They also helped people to remain as independent as possible with personal care and eating.

    We observed staff supporting people in a respectful manner.from the report
  • Personalised support

    Care plans described people's preferences, routines, communication methods and support needs. Relatives were involved in planning and reviewing care.

    Care plans set out personalised information about people.from the report
  • Activities and community life

    People were supported to enjoy activities at home, go out locally, maintain family contact and follow cultural or religious interests.

    Staff supported people to go out into their local community, such as to the shops, for walks and occasional meals out.from the report
  • Staffing and safeguarding

    There were enough staff during the inspection, and staff had training on recognising and reporting abuse. Recruitment checks were in place.

    There were sufficient staff on duty to help people be safe and meet their needs at the time of our visit.from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Unsafe and unclean areas

    serious

    Inspectors found sharp edges, damaged fittings, dirt, mould, rust and broken or corroded equipment in washrooms and other areas. Some repairs were made during the inspection, but wider risks had not been managed consistently.

    A radiator was broken exposing sharp edges.from the report
  • Medicines records and stock

    serious

    A seven-day gap was found in one person's medicines record, and surplus medicines were not included in stock records. Audits had failed to identify these issues.

    This indicated administration recording practice did not provide accurate assurances that people received their medicines as prescribed.from the report
  • Weak quality checks

    serious

    The provider's audits and health and safety checks had not identified important problems in the home or with medicines. Some daily records and shift plans were also incomplete or lacked detail.

    The provider's quality assurance systems had not always ensured that the service addressed risks to people's safety and well-being.from the report
  • Worn environment

    minor

    Paintwork and kitchen surfaces were worn, and a second lounge or sensory room was mainly used as an office and for storing old wheelchairs. This did not always support a homely environment.

    The building was suitable to meet people's needs safely, but some areas were worn and in need of redecoration.from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What repairs and cleaning work have been completed in the washrooms, and how are you checking that sharp edges, rust, dirt and mould do not return?
  2. 02How do you now check that every medicine administration is recorded correctly and that surplus medicines are included in stock records?
  3. 03What changes have you made to your audits so that safety and medicines problems are found promptly?
  4. 04Have the concerns about bathroom and fire doors been resolved by the housing provider, and can you show us the outcome of the checks?
  5. 05How will the second lounge or sensory room be made available for people rather than being used mainly as an office and storage area?

This unannounced inspection looked at all five key questions, the premises and care provided, including infection prevention and control; the previous Good ratings were from the last inspection published in 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 January 2024 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Dimensions 4 Matlock Close

3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.

  1. January 2024Requires improvementcurrent rating
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Dimensions 4 Matlock Close

  2. February 2022Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    We are reading this report · the original is on cqc.org.uk

  3. November 2018Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. September 2015Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. March 2014

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. November 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. August 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. January 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. January 2012

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 January 2012.

Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission. A service can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections, not every contact the CQC has had with the service.

Another option

Or stay at home with a private carer

Many people who look at care homes end up staying at home with a carer who comes in for a few hours a day, or lives in. PrimeCarers introduces you to self-employed carers you choose yourself: interviewed, ID and DBS checked, from about £20 an hour or £1,120 a week live-in.

Same provider

Other services run by Dimensions (UK) Limited

18 other services on the CQC register. A pattern across a group tells you more than one report.

Nearby

Other care homes near Barnet

Olive House

Barnet, EN5 · 0.5 km
Good
Residential
Rated 4 years agocare home