Ashburton House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People's needs had been assessed and care plans contained detailed, clear and consistent information for staff. People's risks had been identified and were monitored. People were supported in line with current best practice.People’s needs were continually monitored and further assessed where required. Any changes in people’s needs were shared with other agencies and relevant healthcare professionals when required.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

We saw evidence the diverse range of people’s needs had been assessed, including their communication needs, and this was documented in a person-centred way. The service used tools to assess people’s needs and reviewed on an ongoing basis. We saw tools to assess skin integrity and functional independence, among others, being used in line with common best practice and noted in NICE (National Institute Clinical Excellence) guidance. These tools were considered in light of other information and a wider ongoing assessment of people’s needs.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Care plans included detailed personalised information to enable person led support. Staff shared their knowledge with each other through handovers and with relevant medical professionals where appropriate. Staff were able to recognise where people's needs were changing and gained the involvement of relevant professionals, if required. Healthcare professionals we spoke with were positive about the recent improvement in communication with the service. They told us this had resulted in good outcomes for people.

Staff we spoke with were positive about their working environment. They said they were supported by the service management and had good working relationships with their peers. One said, “Yes, we have good staff and we all support each other as teamwork is really important and in the care sector it is difficult if you don’t work together as a team.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Staff were knowledgeable about people’s specific health conditions and used guidance from healthcare professionals to ensure care was appropriate and safe. When required, people had involvement from healthcare professionals. Staff worked well with visiting professionals, including GPs and district nurses, and had positive working relationships that supported people’s ongoing health needs.

We received positive feedback about the food provided at the service. One person told us, “The meals are good, nothing to complain about. There’s nothing wrong with it. I think it’s like home cooking. My favourite is the roast.” Another person said, “There is a good choice of food. I go to the dining room to eat.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Care plans contained information about people’s health and wellbeing and were reviewed regularly. Where people had specific healthcare needs or long term conditions, these were reviewed regularly by relevant external healthcare professionals. Any immediate changes were escalated to the relevant GP, and people’s current and changing needs were reviewed through daily handover meetings to ensure timely and coordinated support.

Where people needed specific support with health needs such as diabetes or a catheter, there was clear instruction for staff on how to support them. Care records included what to look out for if the person became unwell or what signs of infection might look like.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

Staff had received training in relation to The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), which provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The registered manager and staff had a clear understanding of the MCA. We saw examples of where mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions had been recorded for certain people. Capacity assessments and consent had been recorded in relation to the providers use of CCTV in communal areas.

During our assessment visit, we observed staff consistently seeking people’s consent before providing support or assisting with activities.