You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 27 November 2018

The inspection of Ashgrove House took place on 16 October 2018 and was unannounced. At the previous inspection in September 2017 we found an issue with medication which was swiftly dealt with. As this was a breach of the Health and Social Care Act regulations the home was rated requires improvement. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions, safe and well led, to at least good. On this inspection we found significant improvement had been made.

Ashgrove House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Ashgrove House accommodates 30 people in one adapted building. During this inspection there were 27 people living at Ashgrove House.

There was a registered manager in post on the day of the inspection and we spent time with them. 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.

People and relatives told us they felt safe and secure at Ashgrove House. This was because they knew all the staff, many of whom had been at the home some time, and also because they felt staff were well trained and knowledgeable. They also felt there were sufficient numbers of staff.

Risks were managed according to individual need and we saw staff support people safely and appropriately with transfers. These were supported with detailed risk assessment and management plans which were regularly reviewed. There were few accidents in the home but those that did occur were properly assessed and reviewed to ensure all possible risk reduction measures were in place, and lessons learned were shared.

Medication was administered, recorded and stored safely, and people’s medication needs were regularly assessed with the support of the local GP who had established a weekly surgery in the home. This ensured any issues were dealt with promptly. Staff were aware, and practised, effective infection control reducing the likelihood of harm.

Best practice principles were adhered to and known as they were fed through the Director of Care, who attended many good practice forums. The registered manager was experienced and shared their knowledge and led by example. Staff had access to regular supervision and training, and were supported by newsletters and meetings of changes in policy or procedures.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People had effective nutritional and hydration support and staff were attentive to people’s differing abilities. They encouraged people to be independent as far as possible, and promoted choice and involvement. Teamwork was evident in the home and staff were extremely supportive of each other, to the extent if any were ill, they would cover for each other. There was a strong commitment to person-centred care and staff supported people discreetly and sensitively, always mindful this was people’s home.

The home was in the midst of a significant extension but had utilised as much as possible of the outdoor space, including the building of a large decked area accessible through the lounge.

Staff were consistently kind, patient and compassionate with people, and clearly knew all residents well. They were involved in reviews of people’s care needs and responded to changes quickly and appropriately to ensure the person had the maximum quality of life. People’s privacy and dignity was promoted.

The

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 27 November 2018

The service was safe.

People were safe and risks were managed robustly, ensuring people’s needs were met.

Staffing levels ensured people’s needs were met promptly.

Medication was administered, stored and recorded properly, and the home was clean and well cared for.

Effective

Good

Updated 27 November 2018

The service was effective.

Staff knowledge and the practice we observed was embedded in current legislation and guidance. Staff received informative supervision and training.

People were supported with their nutritional and hydration needs appropriately.

Staff demonstrated effective team work and the home was compliant with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

Caring

Good

Updated 27 November 2018

The service was caring.

Staff displayed kindness, sensitivity and compassion in all their interactions with people, and people responded positively.

Privacy was respected and dignity promoted at all times.

Responsive

Good

Updated 27 November 2018

The service was responsive.

Records focused on the individual and how they preferred their needs to be met.

There was a full range of activities available for people to engage with.

The home had only received one complaint since the last inspection but this had been dealt with thoroughly and with a satisfactory resolution.

Well-led

Good

Updated 27 November 2018

The service was well led.

The registered manager provided clear and consistent leadership and guidance and led by example.

Staff felt supported and strove to provide the best possible care.

Quality assurance systems were robust and showed if actions were necessary, these were dealt with promptly and effectively.