Archived: Ashlea Grange

Updated 4 December 2015

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 6 October 2015 and was unannounced. This meant the provider did not know we would be visiting. A second day of inspection took place on 7 October 2015 and was announced.

The inspection team consisted of an adult social care inspector, an expert-by-experience and a specialist advisor. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

We reviewed information we held about the service, including the notifications we had received from the provider. Notifications are changes, events or incidents the provider is legally obliged to send us within required timescales.

Before the inspection the provider completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. Before the inspection, we reviewed the information included in the PIR along with other information about any incidents we held about the home.

We contacted the commissioners of the relevant local authorities as well as health and social care professionals to gain their views of the service provided at this home. We contacted the local Healthwatch group to obtain their views. Healthwatch is an independent consumer champion that gathers and represents the views of the public about health and social care services in England.

During the inspection we spoke with five people who lived at the service and four relatives. We looked at seven people’s care plans, medicine administration records (MARs) and daily care records. We spoke with 11 members of staff, including the registered manager, three senior care workers, three care assistants, the activities co-ordinator and members of the domestic and kitchen staff. We looked at three staff files, which included recruitment records.

We used a Short Observation Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk to us.

Updated 4 December 2015

This inspection took place on 6 October 2015 and was unannounced. This meant the provider did not know we would be visiting. A second day of inspection took place on 7 October 2015 and was announced. The service was last inspected on 30 October 2013. At that time it met all of the standards that we inspected against.

Ashlea Grange is a care home providing personal care for up to 40 older people. It is a purpose built care home spread over two floors, though only the ground floor was used for accommodation. At the time of the inspection 10 people were using the service, 9 of whom were living with dementia.

There was a registered manager in place. 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.

Medicine records were not always filled in accurately, which meant it was not always possible to tell if medicines had been administered. Staff did not receive regular supervisions or appraisals, but felt confident to raise issues with the manager. Training the provider deemed as essential for staff to complete was not up to date.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report

People’s relatives thought the service was safe. Detailed risk assessments were carried out, which were used to plan and deliver support in a safe way. The service operated a robust recruitment process, and during induction new staff were equipped with training to allow them to safely support people.

Staffing levels were sufficient to allow staff to spend meaningful time with people, and to deliver support in a patient and unhurried way. Emergency plans for people and the service minimised the risk of harm to people in emergency situations.

The service protected people’s rights by ensuring they were not restricted unnecessarily unless it was in their best interests. The service worked collaboratively with the people’s families to determine people’s best interests, but had not always submitted Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications where it was thought people could be deprived of their liberty.

People were supported to maintain a healthy diet, and to access external healthcare when necessary. The service was involved in a number of collaborative projects with external healthcare professionals for the benefit of people.

Staff supported people kindly and with compassion. Relatives were positive about the care people received, and felt involved in it.

People had their own keyworker which helped to provide a continuity of care. Care plans were detailed and personalised, which meant people received the care and support they wanted. Plans were regularly reviewed to ensure they reflected people’s current needs, and relatives felt involved in this process. The service was pro-active in obtaining the views of people living with dementia.

People had access to a wide range of activities that were tailored to their abilities, and which promoted a homely atmosphere. Relatives felt confident that they could make a complaint if they needed to.

The registered manager regularly assessed all aspects of the service to ensure that quality was maintained. Staff felt supported by the registered manager. The provider also undertook quality checks. Staff did not always feel supported by the provider.