You are here

Ashlar House - Leeds Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 30 July 2019

About the service

Ashlar House is registered to provide accommodation for people who require personal care for up to eight people with autism. Care is provided on three floors in singly occupied rooms, some of which are very spacious. Each room is provided with all necessary aids and adaptations to suit a person’s individual requirements. There are communal areas for dining and relaxation. At the time of our inspection seven people were using the service.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service received planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that was appropriate and inclusive for them.

The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. This is larger than current best practice guidance. However, the size of the service having a negative impact on people was mitigated by the building design fitting into the residential area and the other large domestic homes of a similar size. There were deliberately no intercom, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home. Staff were also discouraged from wearing anything that suggested they were care staff when coming and going with people.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Even though the management team were not fully aware of Registering the Right Support, the service applied these principles and values and other best practice guidance. These ensured people who used the service could live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes that include control, choice and independence.

The outcomes for people who used the service reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support by promoting choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.

The provider did not have effective systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality of service provided. Complete, accurate and contemporaneous records were not always kept. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. However, best interest’s decisions had not always been recorded following a mental capacity assessment.

Individual risks to people's health and safety were assessed and mitigated. However, concerns were noted regarding fire safety risks and actions in the providers legionella risk assessment. The provider did not have robust infection prevention and control systems in place. The home needed redecoration and refurbishment. Some records and minor issues suggested medicines management was not always safe.

Staff did not receive appropriate training necessary to enable them to deliver effective care and support. Staff had not received sufficient formal supervision as outlined in the providers procedure or an annual appraisal.

People said staff were kind and caring. Staff understood how individual people preferred their care and support delivered and the importance of treating people with dignity and respect. The service was not supporting anyone who was at the end of their life. Support plans were person-centred and contained sufficient information for people’s care and support needs to be met. Staff involved healthcare professionals to support people's health needs where required. People received support with eating and drinking, when needed and were involved with weekly me

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 30 July 2019

The service was not always safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 30 July 2019

The service was not always effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 30 July 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 30 July 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Inadequate

Updated 30 July 2019

The service was not well-led.

Details are in our well-Led findings below.