Ashley Court Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to inadequate.

This meant people were not treated with compassion and there were breaches of dignity; staff caring attitudes had significant shortfall.

The provider was in breach of the legal regulations relating to the care people received in relation to dignity and respect.

This service scored 30 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity.
The language and approach used by staff was not always respectful to the people they were offering support to. We saw a staff member point to someone’s tablets, and they said ‘have these, there was no other interaction. Another staff member brought breakfast to another person the staff member left the items on a table next to them pointed to them and said ‘Eat’ before walking off.
We saw a person was using a plastic apron to clean their nose. Staff walk past and spoke with the person during this time and did not offer any support to maintain their dignity. Another person was seated in a wheelchair, with no cushion, they told us they were not feeling great. They remained in this uncomfortable position for over an hour. Staff walked past this person during this time without interacting with this person or offering to make them more comfortable. This meant people were not always supported with dignity and in a kind and caring way.
People and relatives raised no concerns about the staff they received support form. One person said, “The staff work very hard, and they are all very kind”.
 

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences.
We saw people were offered a choice of hot and cold drink with their meals. At breakfast time and at lunchtime. In between this time people seated in the lounge were not offered a drink, if people were mobile, they could go to the kitchen hatch and request a drink, however other service users did not have a drink during this time. We heard 1 person tell a staff member they were ‘thirsty’. The staff member did not respond and did not get a drink for this person.This meant people’s individual requests were not always responded to.
The provider told us there were processes in place to ensure people’s care was assessed. Plans were then put in place based on their individual needs. These systems were not always followed as information about people was not always, in place, up to date or available.
However, people raised no concerns to us and the staff we spoke with were able to tell us about people.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.
We saw staff gave people their lunch however there was no explanation as to what it was. Some of these people were living with dementia and may not recognise the food they were given. We spoke with the cook and asked how people had made choices. They were unable to provide an answer and told us they had plated meals up for people. They confirmed they did not ask people what they would like or use pictures/photo’s or show plates to support as prompts. Therefore, people were not always offered an individual choice which reflected their preferences at mealtimes.
Where people were able to, we saw they asked for an alternative meal, despite a delay they received this.
People and relatives raised no concerns to us and told us they were offered choices. One person said, “I get on with all the staff, they do listen, and they are alright”.
 

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes.
We observed a person was in bed, their leg was hanging over the side of the bed, and they appeared uncomfortable. They were unable to tell us about their experience or move themselves into a more comfortable position. Despite us sharing this with a staff member they remained in the same position for approximately 1 hour and 40 minutes.
Another person was in their bedroom and undressed, and their legs were hanging through their bedrails. We alerted staff immediately. The staff member went in the room and came out a few seconds later. The staff member did not return, and the person remained in the same position. We again alerted the staff member to concern who then acted.
The provider told us people’s needs were responded to and were considered through regular reviews. The records we viewed showed us when reviews did take place they had not always considered incidents that had occurred since the last review. There was not always evidence to show how people were involved with these reviews. This meant the provider had not always considered al risks to ensure action was taken to reduce the risk of reoccurrence.
People raised concerns about the lack of stimulation and activities in the home. One person said, “The home could be improved by putting on more activities, there is nothing to do here, I get up, have breakfast, then either watch TV or have a nap, lunch, watch TV or nap, then tea and again TV or nap. Day after day”. Other than the television being on we did not see any activities taking place and people were asleep for periods of time. The meant people’s interactions and experiences were limited.
 

The provider did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not always support and enabled staff to aim to deliver person-centred care.
Staff we spoke with felt supported and said it was a good place to work. There were systems in place to consider staff wellbeing and staff felt valued by the support they received. However, the provider had not ensured staff had the skills needed to support people safely, in a person-centred way with respect and dignity.