Skip to content
CQC ExplainedEvery inspection report, in plain English

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

Dimensions 40 Cody Road

40 Cody Road, Farnborough, GU14 0DE

Requires improvementpublished 2 November 2023, 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 incomplete risk assessments, unsafe infection control practices and gaps in food and fire safety records. Medicines and recruitment were managed safely.
Effective?
Good
This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward.
Caring?
Good
This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward.
Responsive?
Good
This key question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward.
Well-led?
Requires improvement
Inspectors found that activity plans and care records were not consistently person-centred, and quality monitoring had not identified or fixed important shortfalls.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, November 2023

Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks in care planning, consent, infection control, activities and management systems.

This was an unannounced focused inspection in September 2023. Inspectors reviewed Safe and Well-led, spoke with staff and a relative, observed people and staff, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.

The home was not always safe. Risk assessments and care plans were out of date or incomplete. Inspectors also found problems with consent records, infection control, food safety, fire risk information and meaningful activities. Medicines and staff recruitment were managed safely.

The home was rated Requires Improvement overall, with Requires Improvement for Safe and Well-led. The previous overall rating was Good in 2018. The other three key question ratings were not inspected and were carried forward from the previous inspection.

What inspectors praised
  • Medicines

    Medicines were stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff had training and competency checks before administering medicines alone.

    People's medicines were stored, administered, and disposed of safely.from the report
  • Safeguarding

    The safeguarding systems were effective. Staff said they would report concerns and felt confident that the manager would act.

    Systems and processes in place to safeguard people from abuse were effective.from the report
  • Family communication

    A relative said they were kept informed about relevant information and appointments. The report also found that the provider notified CQC appropriately about certain incidents.

    A relative told us when things went wrong, they were informed and kept up to date and where required apologies were made in writing.from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Consent and legal rights

    serious

    The home was not consistently following mental capacity law. Some capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were missing or not fully recorded, and legal authority for managing some people's finances was not evidenced.

    People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interestsfrom the report
  • Risk information

    serious

    Risk assessments and care plans did not always give staff enough information. Examples included vision problems, blood-thinning medicines, conflicting dietary information and flammable creams.

    Risks to people were not always assessed and mitigated to ensure people would receive safe care.from the report
  • Infection control

    serious

    The home was dusty, cleaning records were blank and some infection control practices did not follow policy or guidance. Inspectors found a toilet bin without a liner during part of the inspection.

    Infection prevention and control was not managed safely in accordance with the provider's policy and people were not always protected from the risk of infection.from the report
  • Activities and community life

    needs fixing

    People did not go out regularly and there was little recorded activity. Inspectors did not see people taking part in activities during the inspection, creating a risk of boredom and social isolation.

    This meant people were at risk of boredom, lack of community engagement and social isolation.from the report
  • Management oversight

    serious

    Quality checks had not reliably found or corrected the problems. Some requested audit records were not provided by the time the report was written.

    Effective risk and quality monitoring arrangements were not place.from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What changes have been made to update every person's support plan and risk assessment?
  2. 02How are mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions now recorded and checked?
  3. 03What has been done to improve cleaning records, food safety and infection control?
  4. 04How often does each person now take part in activities or go into the local community?
  5. 05What action was taken in response to the Regulation 17 Warning Notice, and how is progress being checked?

This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three key question ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 November 2023 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 40 Cody Road

3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.

  1. November 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Dimensions 40 Cody Road

  2. January 2018Goodstayed Good
    Safe: GoodWell-led: Good

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

  3. June 2016Good
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. December 2013

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. November 2012

    Report published without a new overall rating.

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. 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 Farnborough

Willow House

Farnborough, GU14 · 1.7 km
Good
ResidentialDementia
Rated 7 years agocare home

Tall Oaks

Farnborough, GU14 · 1.7 km
Good
Residential
Rated 5 years agocare home

Blue Cedars

Farnborough, GU14 · 1.9 km
Good
Residential
Rated 8 years agocare home

Victoria House

Farnborough, GU14 · 1.9 km
Good
Residential
Rated 2 years agoReport explained