Archived: Ashingdon Hall

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and encouraged them to remain independent. People were treated with kindness, and this was reflected in the feedback from people who use the service and their relatives. People were positive about the care and support they received.

There were no wellbeing initiatives at the service for staff and there was nothing to show how people were supported and enabled to be actively involved in the running of the service.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People spoken with were happy with the care and support provided by staff at Ashingdon Hall. People told us staff were kind and provided them with good care and support. Comments included, “It is very nice here and staff are fantastic, all of them”, “I am quite happy here, staff are kind, and they help me whenever I need it”, Staff here are very kind, and I trust the staff” and “Staff are kind and there is always someone around to help.”

Staff were knowledgeable about each person needs and how to support them.

We saw during both days of assessment that people were treated with kindness and dignity. For example, during mealtimes staff’s practice demonstrated the support provided was unrushed. Staff talked with people ensuring meal times was a positive experience. Where appropriate people were supported to be independent, for example, people were enabled to eat with minimal or no assistance and, in some cases, to mobilise independently. Staff ensured people’s privacy was maintained, announcing themselves before entering a person’s bedroom and providing personal care interventions in private and behind closed doors.

People’s individual needs and preferences were reflected and recorded within their individual care plan. This referred to people’s personal, cultural, social and religious needs. People's life histories had been collated by staff while engaging with the person and their family.

People were supported to maintain relationships that were important to them, including family members and friends. The service supported visits for people, and they were able to receive visitors without restrictions. A person using the service told us, “I have visitors.” A relative told us, “They [staff] always make me very welcome and there are no restrictions on my visiting. They [staff] did say to avoid mealtimes, but I do sometimes come in and have helped.”

There was a lack of evidence to demonstrate how people were supported and enabled to be actively involved in the running of the service. The manager confirmed no meetings had been undertaken for people using the service or their relatives to enable them to have their voice heard.

Staff had a good understanding of people's needs and recognised when they were distressed or were experiencing discomfort. Where people required support, we saw staff offered support in a responsive way.

The manager confirmed there were no wellbeing initiatives at the service for staff. There was no staff reward system in place at Ashingdon Hall, for example, ‘Employee of the Month’, whereby staff were recognised and rewarded for their hard work and going ‘the extra mile’. This was confirmed as accurate by staff.

Staff well-being was not being advocated. Though staff’s wellbeing was briefly discussed and mentioned within supervisions it was not fully explored and supervisions did not take place. Staff did not have regular opportunities to attend staff meetings, to provide feedback, raise concerns and suggest ways to improve the service or staff experience.