You are here

Ash Court Care Centre - Camden Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 10 March 2017

This inspection took place on 18 and 19 January 2017 and was unannounced. At our last inspection in October 2014 the service was rated ‘Good’. At this inspection we found the service remained ‘Good’.

Ash Court Care Centre provides accommodation, nursing and personal care for up to 62 older people over three floors. The home is in Kentish Town in Camden. There were 60 people staying at the home at the time of our visit.

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.

People told us they felt safe at the home and safe with the staff who supported them. They told us that staff were kind and respectful and they were satisfied with the numbers of staff on duty at the home.

Staff understood, respected and responded to each person’s diverse needs in regard to their culture, gender, sexual orientation and spirituality in a caring and compassionate way.

The management and staff at the home had identified and highlighted potential risks to people’s safety and had thought about and recorded how these risks should be reduced.

The home was clean and staff understood about the importance of infection control.

Staff understood the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and told us they would always offer people choices about their care. People told us staff listened to them and respected their choices and decisions.

The service was following the appropriate procedures regarding Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

People had good access to healthcare professionals such as doctors, dentists, chiropodists and opticians and any changes to people’s needs were responded to appropriately and quickly.

People told us they liked the food provided and menu choices were always available.

People using the service and staff were very positive about the registered manager and the management of the home.

People confirmed that they were asked about the quality of the service and had made comments about this. Quality assurance systems were in place in order that suggested improvements could be actioned and monitored.

The service had a number of quality and safety audits which were designed to ensure a safe environment was maintained.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 10 March 2017

The service remains Good.

People told us they felt safe at the home and risks to people’s safety had been identified, acted on and, where possible, were being reviewed with the person.

Staff were aware of their responsibilities to keep people safe from potential abuse.

There were systems in place to ensure medicines were handled and stored securely and administered to people safely and appropriately.

Staff understood their role and responsibilities for maintaining high standards of cleanliness and hygiene.

Effective

Good

Updated 10 March 2017

The service remains Good.

Staff had the knowledge and skills necessary to support people properly.

Staff understood the principles of the MCA and knew that they must offer as much choice to people as possible in making day to day decisions about their care.

People told us they enjoyed the food and staff knew about any special diets people required either as a result of a clinical need or a personal preference.

People had good access to healthcare professionals such as doctors, dentists, chiropodists and opticians.

Caring

Good

Updated 10 March 2017

The service remains Good.

We observed staff treating people with respect and as individuals with different needs.

Staff knew about various types of discrimination and its negative effect on people’s well-being. Staff understood that people’s diversity was important and something that needed to be upheld and valued.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of peoples’ likes, dislikes and cultural needs and preferences.

Staff gave us examples of how they maintained and respected people’s privacy. These examples included keeping people’s personal information secure as well as ensuring people’s personal space was respected.

Responsive

Good

Updated 10 March 2017

The service remains Good.

People told us that the management and staff listened to them and acted on their suggestions and wishes.

They told us they were happy to raise any concerns they had with any of the staff and management of the home.

Care plans listed people’s care needs and included information regarding people’s personal and medical history, likes and dislikes, recent care and treatment and the involvement of family members.

Well-led

Good

Updated 10 March 2017

The service remains Good.

The service was well-led and people we spoke with confirmed that they were asked about the quality of the service and had made comments about this.

People told us the service took their views into account in order to improve.

Staff were positive about the management and told us they appreciated the clear guidance and support they received.