• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Ashberry Court

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

39 Lewes Road, Eastbourne, East Sussex, BN21 2BU (01323) 722335

Provided and run by:
Mr Ramachandran Jalatheepan & Mr Varunatheepan Ramachandran

All Inspections

22 and 24 September 2015

During a routine inspection

Ashberry Court is registered to provide permanent and respite care for up to 22 older people. There were 13 people living at the home at the time of the inspection. People required a range of help and support in relation to living with dementia and personal care needs.

There was a passenger lift at the home, due to the layout of the building, which included some split levels; a chair lift was in place to rooms which could not be accessed by the passenger lift.

This was an unannounced inspection which took place on 22 and 24 September 2015.

Ashberry Court had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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.

The manager was in day to day charge of the home. People and staff told us that they felt supported by the manager and told us they were always available on call to support them when needed.

The provider had not ensured that audits and systems had been maintained to ensure that quality and safety issues were identified and responded in a timely manner.

Environmental risk assessments had not been completed. This included fire and legionella checks.

Fire evacuation procedures needed to be improved to incorporate different staffing levels at night. Personal evacuation procedure information was not in place in event of an emergency evacuation.

Documentation needed to be improved this included identifying people’s choice and involvement in decisions, for example bathing and showering. We also found documentation for medicines needed to be improved.

Peoples dignity had not always been maintained, we saw that when people had spilt food down their clothes they had not been supported to change.

Daily charts including repositioning and nutritional charts had not been completed accurately to ensure peoples skin integrity and nutritional intake was safely monitored. This meant it was not clear that people received appropriate care too meet their needs.

Staff had not received appropriate training to support the needs of people living in the home. Supervisions and appraisals had not been completed. This meant that staff did not receive guidance to ensure they were suitably trained and supported to meet the needs of people living in the home.

Notifications had not been completed to inform CQC and other outside organisations when notifiable events occurred.

Recruitment checks were completed before staff began work.

Staff demonstrated a clear understanding on how to recognise and report abuse.

Referrals were made appropriately to outside agencies when required. For example GP appointments, dental appointments and hospital visits.

Feedback was gained from people this included questionnaires.

We found breaches of Regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what actions we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

19 June 2013

During a routine inspection

We carried out an inspection to follow up on outstanding issues which we found during our previous inspection in February 2013. We incorporated a further two outcomes into this inspection.

We spoke with people who used the service, who told us they were happy and liked living at Ashberry Court. One person told us 'they look after me.'

We saw that peoples care was planned and delivered to meet their individual needs. There was a system in place to check that appropriate standards of cleanliness were maintained.

Staffing levels had been reviewed. These had been maintained in line with the organisations requirements, with both male and female carers providing care. Systems were seen which had been used to ensure that sickness and or staff absence did not cause staffing levels to fall below these levels.

The provider and appointee manager were aware how and when to notify the Care Quality Commission (CQC) or other agencies/organisations of incidents or reportable events.

We saw that records of care and relevant care documentation had been reviewed and updated to ensure an accurate record in respect of each service user and their care needs.

1 February 2013

During an inspection in response to concerns

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. Some people using the service had complex needs, which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences. Those who could told us they were 'OK and felt comfortable.'

We found that care delivered was not accurately documented. The provider could not evidence that there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) had not received notifications of incidents when they had occurred.

22 November 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We used a number of different methods to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. Some people using the service had complex needs, which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences. Those who could, told us they were very happy with the standard of care provided. One person told us "It is nice here."

We found that records contained appropriate documentation to inform staff in relation to the provision of care and treatment. Care was provided to meet individual needs. The provider had appropriate systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the service.

1 August 2012

During a routine inspection

Due to people's dementia type illness, many people were not able to tell us about their experiences. We used a number of different methods such as observation of care and reviewing of records to help us understand the experiences of people using the service. We also used a Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

People we were able to speak with who lived in the home told us they were happy living at Ashberry Court. One person told us 'The food's lovely, I eat everything they give me, I always come to the lounge for supper as I don't like to be on my own, I like to spend time with people' another told us 'I'm quite happy here, it's not like my own home but it's very nice'.

26 March 2012

During a routine inspection

People spoken with told us they liked the home, one person told us' I didn't know what to expect as I have never lived in a care home before, but the staff have showed me such kindness'. Care staff spoken with felt that they needed training to help them to support people living in the home who had challenging behaviour.