You are here

Archived: Ashton House Nursing Home

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 13 March 2013
Date of Publication: 3 April 2013
Inspection Report published 3 April 2013 PDF

People should be treated with respect, involved in discussions about their care and treatment and able to influence how the service is run (outcome 1)

Meeting this standard

We checked that people who use this service

  • Understand the care, treatment and support choices available to them.
  • Can express their views, so far as they are able to do so, and are involved in making decisions about their care, treatment and support.
  • Have their privacy, dignity and independence respected.
  • Have their views and experiences taken into account in the way the service is provided and delivered.

How this check was done

We looked at the personal care or treatment records of people who use the service, carried out a visit on 13 March 2013, observed how people were being cared for and checked how people were cared for at each stage of their treatment and care. We talked with people who use the service, talked with carers and / or family members and talked with staff.

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

Our judgement

People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected.

Reasons for our judgement

People who used the service were given appropriate information and support regarding their care or treatment.

We found that the home provided people with suitable information about the home when they first visited, and when they moved into the home. Most people had been assisted by their family or friends in making the decision to move in, as they were too frail to look at a variety of homes, or lacked the mental capacity to make informed decisions due to dementia.

People were provided with a service user’s guide, which included day to day information such as visiting arrangements and meal times; the home’s statement of purpose and the complaints procedure. One of the managers carried out a pre-admission assessment at the person’s home or hospital to assess if the home could meet their needs. We saw that these assessments were appropriately detailed.

Family members were asked to help people to complete a leaflet called “This is me”. This provided them with the opportunity to give details of the person’s previous lifestyle, their family members, previous occupation and work experiences, and their likes and dislikes. This enabled staff to gain a quick understanding of the person’s needs and preferences.

We carried out a “short observational framework inspection” in one of the dining areas. This involved observing the care given to people who were unable to express their views clearly due to dementia, and seeing how the staff responded to them and met their needs. We saw that staff were gentle and kind, and were patient with people who were confused or frequently asking the same questions. The staff interacted well with people, and were familiar with their daily preferences such as they type of drink and the size of meal they preferred.

We saw that staff treated people with respect and dignity, and maintained their privacy when giving personal care. Staff explained to people what they were doing, and asked people where they wanted to go before commencing any care. People were encouraged to retain their independence with things that they could still do for themselves. For example, we saw that some people were able to eat unaided, and staff did not rush them but allowed them to take their time and finish their meal on their own.

Relatives that we spoke to said that “The staff are very attentive, and are very kind and caring. They respond gently and sensitively to people.”