You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 9 June 2018

This inspection took place on 14 March 2018 and was unannounced. This meant the staff and provider did not know we would be visiting.

Ashleigh is a residential resource that is part of a specialist Further Education College for people with autism spectrum disorder and related conditions. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The majority of people who live at the service are students at the college run by the organisation. They live in the service during term time and return home in the college holidays. The service also offers 2 adult social care placements and respite for one person.

The care home previously accommodated 18 people in one adapted building and was registered in 2011. At the time of inspection six people were using the service. The provider had recently applied to the Care Quality Commission and had re-registered to reduce the number of people who could be accommodated to a maximum of 10 people..

The provider was making changes to ensure the building complied to the model of care proposed from 2015 and 2016 guidance that people with learning disabilities and/or autism spectrum disorder which proposed smaller community based housing. The provider had reduced the numbers of people who could be accommodated at the service to 10 people. Building work was also taking place to create flats and bedsits for people who used the service. The care service had been developed and designed in line with best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism spectrum disorder using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

Due to their health conditions and complex needs not all of the people who used the service were able to share their views about the support they received.

At our last inspection in November 2015 we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence supported the rating of outstanding as the caring and well-led domain exceeded the fundamental standards.

A registered manager was 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.

A chief executive was responsible for the running of the organisation. They supported the management team and represented their views during board meetings. Managers and staff across the organisation were encouraged to continue their professional development in order to progress and provide the best outcomes for people to facilitate this.

The chief executive and registered manager had a clear vision for the organisation and service which put people at the heart of it.

People were extremely well-cared for, relaxed and comfortable. Staff knew the people they were supporting very well and we observed that care was provided with great patience and kindness. The service went to great lengths to ensure people’s privacy and dignity were always respected. Everyone we spoke with complimented and praised the staff team and gave examples of the outstanding care that was delivered. Relative’s comments included, “Ashleigh has been providing person-centred care long before it became a buzz word.” “The care is outstanding.” “Staff go the extra mile, the staff team is well-established and they are very professional and enthusiastic” and “Ashleigh is brilliant.”

Staff were very well supported by the registered manager and senior management team. The registered manager had a clear vision for the service and its development. Staff were extremely knowledgeable about people's needs. They were enthusiastic a

Inspection areas



Updated 9 June 2018

The service was safe.

People told us they felt safe and secure with the service they received. A robust recruitment procedure for new staff was followed.

Staffing levels were sufficient to meet people�s needs safely and staff were deployed flexibly.

There were systems in place to manage risks, respond to safeguarding matters and ensure medicines were appropriately handled.



Updated 9 June 2018

The service was highly effective.

Staff were highly supported to meet people's needs through continuous, proactive and professional development of their skills They had a very detailed knowledge of people�s care and support needs.

People�s rights were protected because there was evidence of best interest decision making, when decisions were made on behalf of people and when they were unable to give consent to their care and treatment.

There was evidence of collaborative working with staff and external professionals to support people's individual needs, goals and aspirations. Staff had an excellent working partnership with them.



Updated 9 June 2018

The service was exceptionally caring.

People, relatives and care professionals without exception praised the caring approach of all the staff. During our inspection we observed sensitive and friendly interactions.

People�s dignity and privacy were respected and they were supported to be as independent as possible. Staff were aware of people�s individual needs, backgrounds and personalities. This helped staff provide personalised care.

A range of information and support was provided to help people be involved in decision making about their daily living and future care and support needs.



Updated 9 June 2018

The service was responsive.

Care plans were person-centred and people�s abilities and preferences were clearly recorded.

Processes were in place to manage and respond to complaints and concerns. People were aware of how to make a complaint should they need to and expressed confidence in the process.



Updated 9 June 2018

The service was consistently well-led.

The management team and staff were open, willing to learn and worked collaboratively with other professionals to ensure peoples� health and care needs were met.

An ethos of involvement was encouraged amongst staff and people who used the service. Staff and people who used the service said communication was effective.

There were robust and effective quality assurance systems in place designed to both monitor the quality of care provided and drive improvements within the service.