Archived: Ashwood Care

Updated 1 September 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 16 August 2018 and was announced. We told the provider two days before our visit that we would be coming. We did this because the provider is sometimes out of the office supporting staff or visiting people who use the service. We needed to be sure that someone would be in. The inspection was carried out by an inspector and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Before the inspection we looked at information we held about the service. This included previous inspection reports and notifications we had received. Notifications are certain events that providers are required by law to tell us about. In addition, we contacted the local authority commissioners of services to obtain their views on the service.

We spoke with 10 people, nine relatives, four care staff, the supervisor, the coordinator and the provider. During the inspection we looked at six people’s care plans, four staff files, medicine records and other records relating to the management of the service.

Updated 1 September 2018

We undertook an announced inspection of Ashwood Care on 16 August 2018. This service is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care to people living in their own houses and flats in the community. It provides a service to older adults and younger disabled adults. Not everyone using Ashwood Care receives regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. On the day of our inspection 31 people were being supported by the service.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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 provider was also the registered manager.

At our last inspection we found breaches of Regulations 12, 14, 17 and 18 Health and Social Care Act, Regulated Activities Regulations 2014 and one breach of Regulation 18 Registration Regulations 2009, Notifications of other incidents. These concerns related to risks to people’s safety, risks to people’s food and hydration needs, ineffective monitoring systems, staff training and failing to notify CQC of reportable events. At this inspection we found improvements had been made

and the service improved from Requires Improvement to Good.

People told us they benefitted from caring relationships with the staff. There were sufficient staff to meet people’s needs and people received their care when they expected. Staffing levels and visit schedules were consistently maintained. The service had safe, robust recruitment processes.

People were safe. Staff understood their responsibilities in relation to protecting people from the risk of harm. Staff had received regular training to make sure they stayed up to date with recognising and reporting safety concerns. The service had systems in place to notify the appropriate authorities where concerns were identified.

Where risks to people had been identified most care plans had appropriate risk assessments in place and action had been taken to manage the risks, although some still required updating. At the time of our inspection, care plans and risk assessments were being reviewed and updated. Staff were aware of people’s needs and followed guidance to keep them safe. People received their medicine as prescribed.

Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) and applied its principles in their work. The MCA protects the rights of people who may not be able to make particular decisions themselves. The provider was knowledgeable about the MCA and how to ensure the rights of people who lacked capacity were protected.

Most people told us staff were mostly punctual and they were generally informed if staff were running late. Records showed there were no missed visits.

People were treated as individuals by staff committed to respecting people’s individual preferences. The service’s diversity policy supported this culture. Care plans were person centred and people had been actively involved in developing their support plans.

People told us they were confident they would be listened to and action would be taken if they raised a concern. We saw a complaints policy and procedure was in place. The service had systems to assess the quality of the service provided. Learning was identified and action taken to make improvements which improved people’s safety and quality of life. Systems were in place that ensured people were protected against the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care.

Staff spoke positively about the support they received from the provider. Staff supervision and meetings were scheduled as were annual appraisals. Staff told us the provider was approachable and there was a good level of communication within the service.

People told us the service was friendly, responsive and well managed. People knew the managers and staff and spoke positively about them. The service sought people’s views and opinions and acted upon them.