Ashridge Court Care Centre

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

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity.

People told us they liked the staff, and we witnessed people responding to staff with obvious affection. Relatives told us staff were, “lovely staff, kind and very good,” “Staff are gentle and understanding of people,” and “Good staff, kind and capable.”

Staff took a person-centred approach and had good relationships with people. They were friendly, caring and professional, which helped people feel comfortable when receiving support. Staff knew people well and spoke to them with warmth and sensitivity.

Some people could not directly tell us about their experience. We used our short observational framework for assessment (SOFI) to observe people’s experience of the care they received. Our observations found staff were kind, caring and compassionate throughout our assessment.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff knew people’s individual preferences, routines and the ways people preferred to receive support. They were able to discuss these in detail and were reflected in the care plans. People received care from staff who knew them well and understood what was important to them. One person said, “Bless them, they know I can be a bit pernickety, but they also know it’s just me” and “They listen to how I like things done, very kind.”

Staff adapted the way they communicated and provided support depending on people’s individual needs and preferences. People were encouraged to maintain interests and routines meaningful to them, which reflected their individual choices and abilities. Care records contained personalised information about people’s backgrounds, preferences and support needs to help staff provide person-centred care.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. People were supported by staff to make choices about their daily lives and were encouraged to remain as independent as possible. During the assessment, we observed that some people chose to spend time in their own rooms rather than in the communal areas. Staff respected these preferences and supported people in line with their wishes, ensuring they were comfortable and able to make decisions about how they spent their day. A relative told us, "They are able to make their own choices about washing or having a shower and what food they want, or if they want to get up, staff never force them." This demonstrated that staff respected people's decisions and supported them to make choices about their personal care and accommodated individual preferences. People were offered choices at mealtimes and alternatives were available if they did not wish to have the planned meal. We observed staff supporting people in a respectful way, enabling people to eat independently where possible. The management team acknowledged our feedback regarding staffing levels having had an impact on peoples’ choices on the first day and have increased staffing levels. People were encouraged and supported to do as much as they could for themselves, to maintain and develop their independent living skills. People’s care plans reflected this approach, what they were willing and capable of doing for themselves safely, and what they needed staff support with, for example, walking. Care plans also reflected people's choices and preferences and information of how staff can support people to make informed choices. For example, using written aids or a family member/advocate. Care records reflected people’s communication needs, so staff understood how to provide people with information and how people communicated their choices and preferences.

The provider had not listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff had not always responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. On the first day of the assessment, we saw that call bells were not answered in a timely way and staff were not able to give the support and care they wished to. This included some elements of personal care. Staff were honest and transparent regarding the pressure they felt. The extra staff immediately deployed had a positive impact and will be maintained by the provider The management team acknowledged our feedback regarding staffing levels having had an impact on peoples’ choices and independence on the first day of the inspection and have increased staffing levels. People were supported by staff to make choices about their daily lives and were encouraged to remain as independent as possible. Staff respected people's decisions and provided support in a way that promoted their choice and control. During the assessment, we observed that some people chose to spend time in their own rooms rather than in the communal areas. Staff respected these preferences and supported people in line with their wishes, ensuring they were comfortable and able to make decisions about how they spent their day. A relative told us, "They are able to make their own choices about washing or having a shower and what food they want, or if they want to get up, staff never force them." This demonstrated that staff respected people's decisions and supported them to make choices about their personal care and accommodated individual preferences. People were offered choices at mealtimes, and alternatives were available if they did not wish to have the planned meal. We observed staff supporting people in a respectful way, enabling people to eat independently where possible. Adapted cutlery and tableware were provided to help people to eat independently where possible. We observed staff offer choices of drinks, food and snacks throughout the day.

The provider did not always care about and promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care.

We met with an unhappy and stressed team of staff. Feedback from staff was not positive relating to the support they received from the management team and their approach to their welfare and wellbeing. Some staff told us that they had felt unsupported and had not been having regular supervision or team meetings to be able to discuss their role, their concerns or training requirements. Staff also said, “In a year I have not met the manager, I work full time, which doesn’t make me feel very valued,” I love the residents, the staff but it’s just been awful recently and everybody is so fed up” and “Everybody is struggling, staff are talking of leaving, morale is very low.” Feedback received was shared with the provider regarding staff feeling undervalued and never being praised or thanked for the work they do. Senior management were very visible during the inspection process and systems put into place to support staff and enable them to speak up.

The staff team however were extremely supportive of each other, which was very important to the team.