You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 8 February 2020

About the service

Ashlar House is a care home providing care and support for people with learning disabilities and autism spectrum conditions who may, at times, display behaviours that challenge others. The service can support up to eight people in one residential adapted building. At the time of this inspection, seven people were living at the home. Ashlar House is also registered to provide personal care to people living in their own home in the community. At the time of our inspection, one person was receiving services from the home care service. During this inspection, we looked at the care provided both at the residential home and by the home care 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 to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service receive planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

The service was a large home, bigger than most domestic style properties. It was registered for the support of up to 8 people. 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 identifying signs, cameras, industrial bins or anything else outside to indicate it was a care home.

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

At this inspection, we found considerable improvements had been made by the provider to put in place systems to effectively assess, monitor and improve the quality of service provided. However, some areas required further work and evidence showed these improvements had been implemented only in the recent months; therefore, limited evidence was available to confirm improvements would be sustained. The provider was going through organisational changes and they told us about their plans to continue developing the service to improve people’s experience while living at the service.

The service provided safe care. People and relative’s feedback was mostly positive about the support offered by staff. Risk assessments were in place to manage risks to people's care, and staff told us about the approaches they would follow to manage people’s behaviours in the least restrictive way possible.

Overall, medication was managed safely.

The service followed safe recruitment practices and we found enough staff were available to support people. The service frequently used agency staff to ensure adequate staffing levels and the provider told us they were in the process of recruiting more staff. We received mixed feedback from relatives in relation the consistent approach followed by staff.

The premises continued in need of ongoing repairs and renovations. These were identified and planned and there was an action plan to ensure issues were addressed timely to guarantee the safety of premises. Regular checks on the building’s safety and hygiene were being done.

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. The outcomes for people using 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 opportunities to gain new skills and become more independent.

The provider completed person -centred assessments and care plans were updated when required. People were supported to access relevant

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 8 February 2020

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 8 February 2020

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 8 February 2020

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 8 February 2020

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 8 February 2020

The service was not always well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.