Archived: Ascot Lodge Care Home For Autism & LD

We observed the care and support that people who used the service received to meet their different needs. We looked at a sample of care records and various management records. These records were used to review, monitor and record the quality of the care and support that people received.

We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask:

' Is the service safe?

' Is the service effective?

' Is the service caring?

' Is the service responsive?

' Is the service well led?

This is a summary of what we found.

Is the service safe?

We spoke with one person who used the service. They indicated that they felt safe living at Ascot Lodge. The same person indicated that staff were kind and friendly towards them and provided the care and support they needed.

All the staff we spoke with who worked at Ascot Lodge were confident that people were safe and they told us they would be happy to have a relative of theirs live at the home.

The majority of staff were new in post. The recruitment procedure carried out was not sufficiently robust to ensure that people who worked at the home were suitable to work with vulnerable people.

There was no consistent system in place to make sure that improvements were made and that people were kept safe. Improvement was needed in areas such as ensuring that equipment was safe to be used.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoL's) which applies to care homes. We found inconsistency in what staff told us as to whether people were able to leave without staff accessing door codes for them. The manager may therefore need to consider whether an application under DoL's is needed.

We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to ensuring people's safety.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed and we saw that people had signed their new care plan. However, care plans were not always reflective of individuals current care needs or completed fully. The plans did not provide staff with the information they needed to consistently meet people's needs.

Is the service caring?

People we spoke with told us that staff treated them kindly and that their needs were met. We saw staff interactions were supportive and respectful.

We found that people were able to make choices about how they spent the day.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that people were supported to be as independent as possible. Records did not always demonstrate how the provider had responded to ensure care needs were met.

Is the service well led?

The provider had some new staff in place including senior members of staff. People who used the service felt well supported by the staff and the manager.

The provider did not have sufficient quality assurance systems in place. Those we saw did not provide evidence that shortfalls were always fully addressed.

We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to providing a service that effectively assesses and monitors the quality of service provision.

We found that people received care and support that met their individual needs. People were protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition and dehydration. Staff were aware of the support people needed and ensured they had enough to eat and drink.

However, we were concerned that people may not always be protected from the risk of harm. Staff did not have information available to them needed to report any safeguarding concerns and this could delay any necessary action when the manager was not on duty. No routine health and safety checks were undertaken to identify any issues relating to maintenance of the premises and this meant that some problems were not addressed. We also noted that recruitment processes did not take into account the legal requirements of foreign nationals working in the United Kingdom. Failure to undertake statutory checks meant that people could be working in the service illegally.

When we inspected the service in July 2012 we found that arrangements for sleeping night staff infringed the privacy of people who used the service. We required the provider improve the arrangements. We visited the service again on 5 February 2013 to check and found that improvements had been made.

In July 2012 we also found that checks were not always undertaken before staff began work at the home. We asked the provider to improve this to safeguard people. We visited the service again on 5 February 2013 to check and found there were effective recruitment and selection processes in place.

In July 2012 we found that some people's care records were not in good order or kept securely and other records were not available or not competently completed. Some recording systems necessary for the safe management of the home were not being effectively maintained. We asked the provider to improve this. We visited the service again on 5 February 2013 and found that records were accurate and fit for purpose and care records were kept securely