Ashburton House

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

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

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

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s care plans were personalised and reflected their individual needs, choices and wishes. Information included how people preferred to be supported, the people who were important to them, and their hobbies and interests.Activities were adapted where needed to reflect people’s preferences and abilities.The activities co-ordinator was clearly passionate about their role and told us, “With people who can’t leave their rooms I go and have chats with them, and I do pamper sessions and nails and hand massages and face masks. It is just about having that one to one time with residents. It is their home at the end of the day so I try and bring as much joy as I can when I come in.”

Where people required specific information within their care plans relating to clinical, communication or nutritional needs, this was clearly recorded and tailored to support their individual circumstances.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People had access to health and social care professionals as and when required, as well as regular contact when needed. Records we reviewed evidenced this. The staff team worked together, had regular meetings and used handover documentation to ensure continuity of care. The provider had systems in place to ensure healthcare professionals were enabled to share information electronically to promote good communication and care outcomes.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Information about the service and upcoming events was displayed on notice boards in communal areas, including required signage advising that CCTV surveillance was in operation within some communal areas of service. Relatives told us they were kept informed about any changes to their loved one’s care and said communication with the service was good.One told us, “When [person] developed [medical condition], they were straight on the phone to me tell me what they planned to do and they’ve really worked hard with them to treat it.”

The registered manager understood their duties under the Accessible Information Standard (AIS) and made sure alternative communication formats were available, when required. They told us that nobody currently needed additional support but could provide examples of where this had been previously used.

We identified some improvements were required on how feedback was obtained and acted upon, however the provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The provider operated a ‘Resident of the day’ process. This process involved ensuring personal care needs had been met and that people had been bathed or showered in line with their preferences, and if their records were current and accurately reflected their assessed needs. The records showed people were asked if they were happy and if they or their relative wished to provide feedback. The document did not explore people’s views on activity provision. Although we observed people engaged in activities on our assessment visit, we received less positive feedback when we asked some people about the activity provision. One person told us, “Most of the activities are for the dementia residents and I don’t feel comfortable.” Another said, “I can get bored at times.”

There was a complaints policy and procedure for people and their relatives to use. There was a complaints log that evidenced a record of concerns raised, progress and outcomes.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Systems were in place to help ensure people were not prevented from receiving the care and support they needed due to their health or disability. The service management and staff told us they worked with external professionals to help ensure people received the relevant health and social care support they required. This was confirmed by people’s records which included support and guidance provided by external professionals who were involved in people’s care.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Information about people’s communication needs, cultural preferences, health conditions and any other factors that could increase the risk of inequality was gathered through initial assessments, regular reviews and ongoing conversations with people and their relatives.

The registered manager and activities co-ordinator told us there was a focus on creating varied events for all people and opportunities to connect with the local community, including activities involving local young people and animals. The registered manager told us the service worked closely with the local church; there was a weekly reading session with the local primary school and a ‘pen pal’ scheme where people exchanged letters with the local school pupils. One person told us, “It was lovely here at Easter when they had dogs and children visiting.”

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Staff supported people to remain at the service at the end of their lives if this was their choice. The service could work closely with healthcare professionals to make sure they planned for and met people’s needs at the end of their lives.

The service had collated information in relation to people’s decisions about their future. Some people’s care records showed that people had held open discussions with staff about if they wished to be admitted to hospital, if they wished to be visited by a member of their faith or specific information about certain music they would like played. Records showed that where relevant, conversations had taken place with healthcare professionals and relatives. Other records showed that people did not wish to discuss the end of their lives, and that this had been respected by the service.