We carried out a review of the data available to us about Askham Place on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Askham Place, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service:
People were happy with the care home and the staff that provided their care. One person told us, “It’s very well organised in general, there are some glitches and they try to improve these.”
People felt safe living at the home because staff knew what they were doing, they had been trained, and cared for people in the way people wanted. Staff assessed and reduced risks as much as possible, and there was equipment in place to help people remain as independent as possible. There were enough staff, and the senior staff also spoke with people regularly. The provider obtained key recruitment checks before new staff started work.
People received their medicines and staff knew how these should be given. Medicine records were completed accurately and with enough detail. Staff supported people with meals and drinks. They used protective equipment, such as gloves and aprons. Staff followed advice from health care professionals and made sure they asked people’s consent before caring for them.
People liked the staff that cared for them. Staff were kind and caring, they involved people in their care and made sure people’s privacy was respected. Staff worked well together, they understood the home’s aim to deliver high quality care, which helped people to continue to live as independently as possible.
Staff kept care records up to date and included national guidance if relevant. Complaints and concerns were dealt with and resolved.
Systems to monitor how well the home was running were carried out. Concerns were followed up to make sure action was taken to rectify the issue. Changes were made where issues had occurred elsewhere, so that the risk of a similar incident occurring again was reduced. People were asked their view of the home and action was taken to change any areas they were not happy with.
Rating at last inspection: Good. (Previous report published July 2016.)
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as scheduled in our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
This comprehensive inspection took place on 24 May and 22 June 2016 and was unannounced. There were 16 people living at the home when we visited.
As part of its conditions of registration, this home is required to have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the home is run. There was no registered manager in place as the registered manager had left two weeks before the inspection. The provider’s Operations and Quality Manager was managing the home.
People were comfortable with the staff and people’s relatives were happy with the support provided to their family members. Staff liked working at Askham Place and were well-supported by the manager and senior staff.
Staff had undergone training and were competent to recognise and report any incidents of harm. Potential risks to people had been assessed, which meant that people were kept as safe as possible.
There were sufficient staff on duty to make sure that each person had the support they needed to do whatever they wanted to do. Staff had been recruited in a way that made sure that only staff suitable to work in a care home were employed. Staff had undertaken a range of training in topics relevant to their role so that they were equipped to do their job well. Medicines were managed well so that people received their prescribed medicines safely.
The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which apply to care services. People’s capacity to make decisions for themselves had been assessed. Staff had a good understanding of the principles of the MCA. Appropriate applications had been made to the relevant authorities to ensure that people’s rights were protected if they lacked mental capacity to make decisions for themselves.
People’s healthcare needs were monitored and staff involved a range of healthcare professionals to make sure that people were supported to maintain good health and well-being. People were given sufficient amounts of food and drink and people's dietary needs were met.
Staff showed that they cared about the people they were supporting. Staff treated people with kindness, respect and compassion and made sure that people’s privacy and dignity were upheld at all times. People’s personal information was kept securely so that their confidentiality and privacy were maintained.
People’s relatives were involved in the planning of their family member’s care and support. Staff gathered as much information as possible about each person so that their support plans were personalised. This meant that people received the support they needed in the way they preferred.
A wide range of activities and outings was organised to make sure people had opportunities to do whatever they wanted to do. People and their relatives knew how to complain and complaints were responded to in a timely manner.
The manager was approachable and people, relatives and staff were satisfied with the way the home was managed. People and their relatives were encouraged to share their views about the quality of the service being provided to them in a number of both formal and informal ways. Staff were also given opportunities to share their views about ways in which the home could continue to improve. Audits of all aspects of the home were carried out to make sure that a good quality service was provided. Records were maintained as required.
Askham Place is registered to provide accommodation and care, with nursing, for up to 16 adults. It is part of the Askham Village Community, which comprises of four care homes, each catering for a different client group, built around a central courtyard garden. Askham Place is on one floor, with a large lounge/dining area, which has a kitchenette, and all bedrooms are single rooms with an en suite bathroom. There is a shared café opening onto the courtyard, which is open to the general public.
The inspection took place over two days and was unannounced. There were 15 people in residence. The last full inspection of Askham Place was on 16 October 2013. During this inspection we found that improvements were needed relating to the management of medicines. The provider sent us an action plan detailing the improvements they were going to make. In December 2013 we carried out a review of the evidence sent to us by the provider and found that the required improvements had been made.
There was a registered manager in place. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager is also registered to manage Askham Court, one of the other three care homes on the site.
People were safe living at Askham Place and staff had undergone training to recognise and report abuse. Any potential risks to people were managed so that people were protected from harm.
There were enough staff on duty to keep people safe and pre-employment checks had been carried out to ensure that only staff suitable to work at the home were employed. People were given their medicines safely. Staff were trained and knowledgeable in how to prevent infection but this had not resolved the unpleasant odour we found in the home.
The CQC monitors the operation of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which apply to care services. People’s capacity to make decisions for themselves had been assessed by staff trained to do so. However, staff’s knowledge was not sufficient to ensure that people’s rights were protected if they did not have capacity to make decisions for themselves.
People were given sufficient amounts of nutritious and appetizing food and special diets were catered for. People’s health was monitored and maintained by staff with the involvement of a range of healthcare professionals.
Relationships between people who lived at Askham Place and the staff were very good and staff showed they cared about the people they were looking after. Staff treated people well and respected their privacy and dignity. People were encouraged to remain as independent as possible.
People and their relatives were not always involved in the planning and reviewing of their care. Care plans did not contain sufficient, up to date information to give staff guidance on how to offer people consistent and personalised care and support. There were not enough activities, outings and entertainment offered to people to keep them occupied.
There was an open culture in the home and people, their relatives and other visitors were encouraged in a number of ways to put forward their views about the service and make suggestions for improvements. Audits carried out were not always effective in driving improvements in the quality of the service provided.
We found a breach of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.
We have made a recommendation about upholding the rights of people who lack the mental capacity to make all their own decisions.
Care and support was being regularly reviewed to ensure that peoples' needs were being met. There was evidence of people's involvement in the planning of their care and support.
There were procedures in place for the safe administration of medication in the policies the home had written, although there were several errors in the recording and supply of medication that had been administered to people. We have set a compliance action in relation to this.
There was a suitable recruitment process in place to ensure staff had been safely and rigorously recruited.
There were adequate number of staff working on the day of inspection and similar suitable staffing arrangements were in place for the weekly staffing rosters that we read.
One person explained to us how they were offered pain relieving medication and had been enabled to make decisions about taking their medication.
The three people we spoke with felt that their personal and social care needs were being met. Staffs interactions were mostly appropriate and frequent. People said that the staff were very good, but spoke of some staff being better than others and a lack of cohesiveness and team work on some shifts. Our observations were positive, but we noted that at times the staff provided individual support and assistance without first checking and communicating with the recipient of the attention, failing to consistently treat the people with dignity and respect.
The environment was very busy, which some residents saw as advantageous, but we were concerned that a lot of interaction was exclusively between staff and visitors and not with the people living there. One person told us they were part of a focus group, looking partly at a new development that has commenced in the grounds of the home.