We carried out a review of the data available to us about Ashgate House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Ashgate House, you can give feedback on this service.
Ashgate House is a residential care home providing personal care to 9 at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 10 people.
We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
We found that improvements could be made to the administration and recording of medicines.
Right Support: People lived in an ordinary residential home in a residential street. They were supported by a staff team that understood their needs.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
Right Care: People were protected from the risk of abuse. Risk assessments had been carried out to identify the risks people faced. These included information about how to mitigate those risks. There were enough staff working at the service to meet people's needs and the provider had robust staff recruitment practices in place. Infection control and prevention systems were in place. Accidents and incidents were reviewed to see if any lessons could be learnt from them.
Right Culture: People were supported with care that was person-centred. Quality assurance and monitoring systems were in place to help drive improvements at the service. Relatives and staff told us there was an open and positive culture at the service. The provider was aware of their legal obligations and worked with other agencies to develop best practice and share knowledge.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 26 June 2018).
Why we inspected
We had not inspected this service for over 5 years and we needed to check that they were still providing good quality and safe care.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Ashgate House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Recommendations
We have made a recommendation about the safe recording and administration of medicines.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.
Ashgate House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.
Ashgate House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 10 people in one two-storey building. At the time of our inspection there were nine adults living at the home and one person on respite care, all of whom had a learning disability. The home is managed and run by Allied Care Limited, a large organisation who owns services throughout the UK.
The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. “People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.” Registering the Right Support CQC policy.
There were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs.
Checks were carried out during the recruitment process to ensure only suitable staff were employed.
There were arrangements in place for the safe management of people’s medicines and regular checks were undertaken.
The service was clean and had effective systems to protect people by the prevention and control of infection.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The provider was aware of their responsibilities and had acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.
People’s nutritional and healthcare needs had been assessed and were met.
People were supported by staff who were suitably trained, supervised and appraised.
Staff were caring and treated people with dignity and respect. Care plans addressed each person’s individual needs, including what was important to them, and how they wanted to be supported.
People were involved in undertaking activities of their choice. People were cared for in a way that took account of their diversity, values and human rights.
Where appropriate, people’s end of life wishes were discussed and recorded.
People living at the home, their relatives and stakeholders told us that the management team was approachable and supportive. People and their relatives were supported to raise concerns and make suggestions about where improvements could be made.
The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and ensure that areas for improvement were identified and addressed.
The registered manager kept themselves informed of developments within the social care sector and cascaded important information to the rest of the staff team. This helped ensure that staff were informed and felt valued.
This unannounced inspection took place on 8 and 11 May 2015.
Ashgate House is a ten bed service providing support and accommodation to people with a learning disability. At the time of the inspection ten people were living there. It is a large house in a residential area close to public transport and other services. The house has special adaptations to the bath and shower rooms. There is a lift to all the floors. The home is therefore accessible for people with physical disabilities or mobility problems. People live in a clean and safe environment that is suitable for their needs.
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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were safe at the service. They were supported by kind, caring staff who treated them with respect. Systems were in place to minimise risk and to ensure that people were supported as safely as possible.
Staff were attentive and supportive. They engaged with people and chatted and laughed with them throughout the day.
People were cared for by staff who had the necessary skills and knowledge to meet their assessed needs, preferences and choices and to provide an effective service.
People were supported to make choices about what they did and what happened to them. They took part in activities of their choice in the community and in the service.
The staff team worked closely with other professionals to ensure that people were supported to receive the healthcare that they needed.
Staff had received Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) training. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards is where a person can be deprived of their liberties where it is deemed to be in their best interests or for their own safety. Staff were aware that on occasions this was necessary. We saw that this was thought to be necessary for some people living at the service to keep them safe.
People were supported to eat and drink enough to meet their needs. They told us that they liked the food.
Staff received the support and training they needed to carry out their role and provide a safe and appropriate service that met people’s needs.
The provider and the management team monitored the quality of service provided to ensure that people received a safe and effective service that met their needs.
People told us they believed there were enough staff working at the service, and that staff provided support in a prompt manner. One person said 'we shout out and they (staff) come quickly.' We observed that staff were not rushed when carrying out their duties, and staff told us they had enough time to do their job properly.
People we spoke with told us they had not had to make a complaint. However, they said they knew who they to complain to if they wanted. One said 'I would tell (my keyworker).' We found that the service had a complaints procedure in place, although the manager told us no complaints had been made in the past two years.
We saw that staff treated people with respect and dignity. People we spoke with told us that the staff were kind and respected their privacy. We observed staff supporting people in a friendly and professional way and saw that people were offered a choice with regard to menus, activities and care preferences.
People were positive about the care and treatment they received at the home. Records showed us that people who use this service had good access to a range of health professionals.
We saw that people who used this service felt safe. Staff that we spoke to had a clear understanding of safeguarding and in issues concerning people's mental capacity to make decisions.
We looked at staff files and saw that all staff had been police checked and that appropriate references had been obtained and employment checks carried out for all staff.
Policies and procedures were comprehensive and were regularly reviewed. Health and safety records were up to date and risk assessments had been completed in all appropriate areas.