Archived: Ashingdon Hall

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

Whilst people were positive about the care provided, they did not always receive personalised care that met their needs. People were supported to maintain relationships that matter to them. People’s end-of-life care wishes were discussed and recorded. Relatives knew how to raise any concerns or issues.

This service scored 54 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff and the management team knew people well and therefore felt able to provide person-centred care. A staff member told us, “I know X likes to wear bright colours, so we make sure this happens.”

People spoke positively about the care they received and were responsive to people’s needs. However, as highlighted previously, people’s experience did not always evidence personalised care that met their specific needs. This referred specifically to the person who did not have their pressure relieving cushion in place and was being transferred without being given the time to complete the task independently.

People had continuity of care from a stable staff team as agency staff were not used at the service.

Each person who used the service had a care plan in place detailing their care and support needs and the delivery of care to be provided. However, as highlighted previously, people’s experience did not always evidence personalised care that met their specific needs.

We did not look at Providing Information during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Staff made the effort to converse with people throughout both days of the assessment. There was a good rapport and banter between staff and people using the service. A relative told us they felt able and comfortable to raise concerns and stated, “If I had a complaint, I would go to the manager, but I have never complained, not needed to.”

There was a complaints procedure in place to enable people, relatives and others to formally raise issues or concerns with the management team. Information available at the time of our assessment showed no complaints had been logged since our inspection in December 2023.

There was a lack of initiatives considered to demonstrate how people using the service and relatives could be involved and kept informed about theirs or their family member’s care. For example, there were no newsletters or blogs as a means of communication, and people’s feedback was not regularly sought through regular meetings.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Discussions with people using the service and those acting on their behalf said they had not experienced discrimination or inequality.

Care records demonstrated people were able to access services, including a range of external healthcare services and professionals throughout the day and out of hours. There was no evidence to suggest people experienced delays in healthcare provision.

Staff knew people well and were made aware of people’s wishes in relation to their plans for future care.

Care plans demonstrated people’s end of life care requirements and wishes were documented. Where appropriate, ‘Do Not Attempt Cardio-Pulmonary Resuscitation’ [DNACPR] orders were recorded. The service worked in partnership with other professionals, such as the local palliative care team to ensure people received appropriate end of life care. Not all staff had completed end of life care training.