Ash Court Care Centre - Camden

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.
This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.
 

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider assessed people’s needs and choices. Assessments of people’s needs were carried out in a timely manner and involved all appropriate parties, including healthcare teams and relatives. Advocates were involved for people who did not have capacity to make decisions about their care. Once care plans were in place, needs were reviewed regularly and updated when they changed.
We saw assessments included, physical, mental health, social and communication needs. Care plans included people’s preferences and focussed on promoting and maintaining their strengths. Care plans also provided detail of individual social and emotional wellbeing, along with details of how these areas would be met.
Care records we looked at were clear. These contained sufficient detail of tasks undertaken as well as how people were feeling and any action that needed to be taken following care being given. They gave insight into people as individuals. Care recording was overseen by senior staff auditing.
One person we spoke with said, “The staff know the help I need, which is reassuring”
We were also told by other healthcare agencies that Ash Court were proactive in asking for sufficient details prior to people moving in and are honest in any limitations they may have. This ensured people whose needs cannot be met by Ash Court are not admitted.
 

People received evidence-based care and support. Staff we spoke with showed an understanding of risk and monitoring tools, such as those used to assess risk of falls, risk of skin damage and swallowing. Kitchen staff were aware of needs relating to food consistency and any dietary needs related to healthcare, such as reduced sugar or salt diets. Nutrition and fluid intakes were recorded, and staff were responsive to changes, with escalation to GP where required.

Care plans we saw included records using appropriate measuring tools to recognise a person’s usual presentation. This allowed changes to be recognised quickly and monitored effectively.

Staff teams worked well together. Staff we spoke with were positive about working with external agencies, such as GP, rapid response and local commissioners.
Ash Court were an active part of multidisciplinary team meetings (MDT) to ensure all relevant people were involved in care and could share information about concerns, treatments and progress easily and openly.
Other members of MDT meetings told us that Ash Court contributed to these with transparency and were proactive in asking for further support if needed. One said, “I consider the nursing and management teams at Ash Court to be caring and reliable partners who are key to providing good quality care to residents.”
Care plans included a hospital passport which is a tool to facilitate smooth handover of care to hospital when people need to attend whether for a planned or unplanned stay. One healthcare partner told us, “The team are quick to act to ensure inbound hospital transfers are safe and thorough, and to pursue colleagues in secondary care”
 

The provider supported people to live healthier lives. People had access to healthcare from visiting professionals such as, dentistry, podiatry, physiotherapy and a weekly GP round.
People were encouraged to attend activities even if they regularly declined. Activities were varied including local visits as well as exercise classes. Those who preferred to stay in their rooms or were unable to attend were offered 1:1 activities. One relative spoke with said, “They try to get my [relative] out of bed and there is a chair with wheels that they can take [them] upstairs in if things are going on”
Arrangements were in place for people to have a healthy and nutritious diet and residents received appropriate healthcare whenever they needed it. Cultural needs were also met by giving appropriate food and addressing choice. Staff showed good understanding of food and nutrition as well as skin care.
External professionals told us they felt care staff knew people and their individual needs well.
 

The provider monitored outcomes. Care plans we reviewed and conversations with staff demonstrated that Ash Court had clear understanding of the expectations of people, their relatives and commissioners. This was the case for both care and clinical needs.
The service had close contact with clinical partners and commissioners who told us Ash Court shared monitoring and actions and were proactive in seeking support for the best outcomes for people who lived there. One told us, “They are very proactive with asking for advice. They let us know if something is not working and follow our plans.”
Staff at the service used appropriate tools to monitor emerging risk, such as behavioural changes and understood how to interpret this information as well as how and when to seek further input. This helped to ensure appropriate care or treatment was sought at the earliest opportunities to achieve the best outcomes.
 

The provider ensured consent was obtained. During our on-site assessment, we observed staff seeking consent from people to provide care. Care plans we looked at had a record of people’s consent to care being given. Where a person did not have mental capacity to consent to care and treatment, there was a record of an appropriate assessment of this having been carried out. These involved the relevant people to support the person being assessed, including independent advocates where a person did not have suitable family or friends to do so.
Staff demonstrated working knowledge of the key principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and how this related to consent. Decisions made on behalf of people who were unable to consent due to reduced mental capacity were clearly recorded and done so in the best interest of the person as agreed by their family/friends/advocate.
People’s decisions to decline support were respected and responded to appropriately. For example, by repeating the offer at another time and being adaptable to people changing their decisions around receiving support.
All care plans we reviewed had a clear record of whether the person would wish for resuscitation should the need arise. Discussions relating to these decisions were recorded including who was involved. These decisions were reviewed with care plans and updated should wishes change.