Ash Court Care Centre - Camden

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment, we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment, the rating has changed to good.
This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.
 

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.

People received person-centred care. Care plans were person centred and tailored to individual needs. Some care plans would benefit from more condition specific information, such as autism and dementia types to provide greater understanding and explanation of needs.
Care delivery was personalised with details such as preferred clothing choice, food preferences and cultural/religious needs. Care plans also contained information such as a person’s request for specific genders of care staff and how they liked to be addressed and interests.
People were involved in their care planning and reviews with family included where this aligned with what people wanted. For people who did not have capacity to make decisions about their care, a nominated relative/friend or independent advocate was sourced and consulted.
 

People received continuity of care. Commissioners of care told us that Ash Court works well to deliver care as agreed with open communication should needs change.
All partner agencies we spoke with told us that Ash Court worked in collaboration to ensure the best outcomes for people and were always present as required at multidisciplinary meetings, contributing appropriately and seeking support and advice when it was needed.
One comment we received was, “The team is responsive to referrals and transparent in their feedback when they are unable to meet the needs of our residents”.
People had regular access to visiting GP, podiatry and dental services, with additional input from other professionals according to need. Those partners told us that Ash Court worked with them and followed advice as well as questioning and requesting further support when required.
 

The provider made sure people had the information they needed. We saw a clear data policy that adhered to legislation regarding information sharing. Records made clear who people had given permission for information to be shared with. For example, we saw 1 person’s record that made clear the details of a specific person with whom information should not be shared for safeguarding purposes.
Consent for permission to share details when needed, for example, relating to healthcare was sought and recorded clearly.
Care plans we saw during our inspection, detailed communication needs and preferences clearly, including hearing loss and non-verbal prompts.
 

The provider listened to and involved people. Regular meetings were held for people and included people’s family and friends. These covered updates on Ash Court and any changes in practice/building works other important information with reasons given for any changes. Detail was also provided of news and upcoming events with dedicated time for attendees to raise any issues they wished to. Updates were subsequently provided.
People we spoke with told us they felt able to raise concerns they had without the need to wait for specific requests for feedback,
Complaints policies were clear and available to people. We viewed complaints records which were detailed and clearly outlined what action had been taken at each stage. This was shared with not only the complainant but also with relevant partner agencies depending upon the topic. All complaints handled were audited by senior staff to ensure all steps had been taken in line with policy.
In addition to meetings, people were also asked to provide feedback periodically in a more structured survey. Any concerns raised were followed up and outcomes were shared with people and relatives.
 

The provider ensured equity in access. Partners we spoke with told us they were able to visit Ash Court when needed to see people who received support. They were flexible in order to follow advice and ensured people were able to attend external appointments when required.
Staff understand people’s individual needs and adapt to ensure they have an equal experience of care. We observed staff using communication styles to suit the person they were supporting.
People had access to lounge and outdoor areas with those who could not mobilise without support encouraged and supported to move around the home. Where this was not possible, people were offered activity and mealtimes in their rooms.
Emergency policies, such as fire evacuation, infection control and operational continuity, addressed the varying needs of people to ensure differing needs were observed and planned for.
 

The provider ensured equity in experience and outcomes. During our visit, we spoke with staff who demonstrated understanding of how to identify those who may be more at risk of discrimination and unequal outcomes.
All staff undertook equality training both on commencing employment at Ash Court as well as regularly thereafter.
There were policies in place to guide support for those with different needs that were in line with equality and human rights legislation.
 

The provider supported people to plan for the future. Ash Court works well with other professionals to support people in achieving goals – whether they be physical or social. Adaptions are made to support changes in need over time and potential changes are also considered in regular care reviews and multidisciplinary meetings.

People’s care plans included wishes for the future. End of life wishes and preferred priorities of care were documented, providing clarity for staff and offering family involvement where appropriate. The sensitivity of such conversations was evident in care plans. For those who did not want to make such plans, this was respected, documented but also revisited at each review