We carried out a review of the data available to us about Ashton 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 Ashton, you can give feedback on this service.
Ashton is a care home providing personal care to up to three people with learning disabilities and/or autistic spectrum disorder. At the time of the inspection there were three people living at the service.
The service has been developed 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’s experience of using this service and what we found
People received care and support from staff who knew them well and were well trained. We have made a recommendation that the provider review their training provision against the latest best practice guidance.
People received effective health care and support. People's rights to make their own decisions were protected. They 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 were protected from the risks of abuse and said they felt safe with the staff providing their support and care. Risks to people’s personal safety had been assessed and plans were in place to minimise those risks. Staff recruitment and staffing levels supported people to stay safe while working towards their goals and going about their lives. Medicines were handled correctly and safely.
People were treated with care and kindness. They were consulted about their care and support and could change how things were done if they wanted to. People were treated with respect and their dignity was upheld. This was confirmed by people and relatives who provided feedback. People's diverse needs were identified and met and their right to confidentiality was protected.
The outcomes for people using the service who had a learning disability and/or autism reflected the principles and values of Registering the Right Support. The service and staff strongly promoted choice and control, independence and inclusion. People's support was person centred and focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent. The ethos and values of the service were designed, and were successful, in making sure people were supported to live a full and meaningful life. People were able to enjoy a number of activities, based on their likes and preferences. Staff continually looked for ways to improve and enhance people's lives by exploring new activities and employment they could participate in.
People benefitted from staff who were happy in their work and felt well managed and supported. The service had an open and inclusive culture and encouraged suggestions and ideas for improvement from people who use the service, their relatives and staff. The quality assurance systems were successful in ensuring the quality of the service was maintained.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 10 August 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good and had continued to meet all the fundamental standards of quality and safety.
Why the service remained Good:
The staff team were caring and respectful and provided support in the way people preferred. Their right to confidentiality was protected and their dignity and privacy were respected. People were encouraged and enabled to live as full a life as possible, maintaining their independence where they could.
People received care and support that was personalised to meet their individual needs. People were supported to maintain relationships with those important to them. They led busy lives, participating in work and activities they enjoyed and were encouraged to try new activities where they wanted to. People knew how to raise concerns and felt confident they would be listened to if they did.
Staff had a good understanding of how to keep people safe and protect them from abuse. Personal and environmental risks to the safety of people, staff and visitors had been assessed and actions had been taken to minimise those risks. Recruitment processes were in place to make sure, as far as possible, that people were protected from staff being employed who were not suitable. There were sufficient numbers of staff and medicines were stored and handled correctly.
People benefitted from a staff team that was well trained and supervised. 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 were supported to eat and drink enough and their health and social care needs were met.
People were relaxed and happy and there was an open and inclusive atmosphere at the service. Staff were happy in their jobs and there was a good team spirit. They felt supported by the management and said the training they received enabled them to meet people's needs choices and preferences. Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the quality of service being delivered and the running of the service.
Further information is in the detailed findings in the full report.
This inspection took place on 4 August 2015 and was announced. We gave the registered manager 24 hours' notice as this is a small service and the people are often out all day. We needed to be sure someone would be in.
Anthony Toby Homes Trust - 38 Sarum Crescent provides a service for up to three people with learning disabilities and/or autistic spectrum disorder. The service is set in a residential area of Wokingham. Due to the small size of this service, and so as not to identify them, we have not included direct quotes from people living at the home in this report.
The service has a registered manager. 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 were protected from the risks of abuse and knew who to talk to if they were concerned. Medicines were managed well and staff administering medicines were only allowed to do so after passing their training and being assessed as competent.
People were protected by robust recruitment processes and could be confident that staff working with them were checked for suitability. Staff were available when people needed them and were well trained and supported by their managers.
People received effective care and support from staff who knew how people liked things done. New staff were provided with induction training and ongoing training was monitored with updates provided as needed.
People worked with the staff, planning and ensuring their diets were nutritious and took account of their individual likes and dislikes. People were able to participate in activities of their choice and were supported to be involved in the local community.
People benefitted from staff who were well supervised. Staff had regular one to one meetings (supervision) with their manager every two to three months to discuss their work.
People's rights to make their own decisions were protected. Managers and staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. They were aware of their responsibilities related to the Act and ensured that any decisions made on behalf of people were made within the law and in their best interests.
People received effective health care support. People's health and well-being was assessed and measures put in place to ensure people's needs were met in an individualised way. A care manager confirmed people's health needs were looked after and advice sought when needed.
People were treated with care and kindness and were supported to be as independent as possible. People's wellbeing was protected and all interactions observed between staff and people living at the service were caring, friendly and respectful. People confirmed staff respected their privacy and dignity.
People were supported to express their views and be involved in decisions related to the planning of their care and the running of the service. People knew what to do and who they would talk to if they had any complaints. There had been no formal complaints made to the service since our last inspection and no one had contacted us with concerns.
People benefitted from a staff team that were happy in their work. Staff told us they enjoyed working at the service. They felt supported by the management and their colleagues when working there. The registered manager oversaw and managed practice at the service and encouraged an open and inclusive culture.
We went to the home's larger sister home nearby in order to assess staff training records. While there, we spoke with five of the 10 care staff who also worked at Anthony Toby Homes Trust - 38 Sarum Crescent.
People living at the home told us staff knew what they should do when supporting them and knew the way they liked things done. People told us they always knew who was working in advance and they never had staff they did not know.
We found the provider had taken steps to provide care in an environment that was suitably designed and adequately maintained. People were protected from the risks of inadequate nutrition and dehydration and were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.
The provider had an effective complaints system and people living at the home knew who to speak to if they had any concerns.
We found the provider met the outcomes we inspected and had systems in place to monitor their own compliance.
Both people spent a part of their day at the home's sister home nearby and we visited them there to gain their views. We were also able to assess some staff and organisational records which were normally kept at the larger sister home. The staff work across the two homes, this meant that most of the staff we observed working with the people living at 38 Sarum Crescent were staff who would work with them normally.
People living at the home told us that staff always double checked that they wanted help with their care needs before providing any assistance. They also told us that staff helped them to understand if they needed any treatment from outside professionals such as doctors or dentists.
People living at the home we spoke with told us that they felt their needs were being met and that their care was delivered in the way they preferred. They felt that staff were available when they needed them and that the staff had the skills they needed when supporting them and providing any care. People told us they always knew who was working and that they never had staff they did not know.
People living at the home felt that their views were actively sought by the home and that their opinions were listened to and taken into account by the management and staff.
People living at the home told us they felt safe living there and that staff were always available when they needed them. They felt the staff knew what they needed and knew how they liked things done.
People we spoke with told us they were involved in making decisions about the way they lived their lives and the care they received. They felt the staff always respected their privacy and dignity and that the staff helped them to remain as independent as possible.