Ashley Court Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

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

This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The provider was in breach of the legal regulations relating to person centred care.

This service scored 39 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment.
People were not always supported to meet their needs. Some people looked unclean and unkept. We asked for information about how people accessed the shower or bath. We did not always receive this information.
People’s individual bedrooms were not homely. One person had a hoist stored at the end of their bed, another was lying on a plastic mattress with no sheets and the whole room lacked personalisation. Another person’s bedroom had boxes of pads piled up. This meant individual environments did not always reflect people’s preferences.
Staff felt they were aware of people’s individual needs and preferences and could tell us some information about what people preferred. However, as people and relatives felt they were not always involved with their care planning and records were not always in place or up to date, the provider had not always ensured they worked alongside them to deliver person centred care.
 

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.
As care plans and risk assessments were not always in place or reflected of people’s current needs we could not be assured people received consistent care. Care plans had conflicting information in them for example, for 1 person who was hoisted their mobility care plan also said they could stand. This meant people were at risk of not receiving consistent care.
As people did not always have care plans and risk assessments in place it meant staff did not always have up to date guidance available about people, which left them at risk of receiving unsafe support and potential harm
As people and relatives felt they were not always involved with this process or had seen these care plans we could also not be assured they were accurate.
 

The provider did not supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.
We received mixed feedback from people and relatives about how information was provided to them. A relative told us, “My relations dementia has progressed and now she has reverted back to her birth language, the staff try hard to understand her, if my relation gets frustrated that they aren’t understanding her they can call me to speak with her”. They confirmed, “They do not have any communication prompts or cards”.
When people’s first language was not English their preferred methods of communication were not always considered.
One person’s first language was documented in their communication plan. The deputy manager told us key words in this person’s first language were used and written throughout their care plans and records. We viewed their care plans and records and found this was not accurate. It was therefore unclear how this person had been involved with their care planning. Another person’s communication plan explained they had reverted to their first language, which made it harder for staff to understand them. No staff in the home spoke this language and there was no action being taken to ensure this person could be fully understood. Another person’s records confirmed they needed support from an interpreter with their care panning. There was no evidence to show an interpreter had been involved with the care planning process and when we asked the deputy manager they were unable to confirm there had been.
 

The provider had systems in place to enable people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. However, action was not always taken in response to people’s feedback. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.
We received mixed feedback on how people were involved with their care. One person told us, “I have not attended any resident’s meetings or been asked for any feedback”. Another relative told us, “I have never received a questionnaire or been asked for my opinion of the care home”. Other people raised no concerns and one person said, “The staff listen to what I want and respect my decisions.”
We saw people were not always involved with their care. We viewed the lunchtime menu, and this was in a written format, which some of the people living in the home may not understand.
Furthermore, whilst serving people their lunches, 2 staff members were talking to each other in a language, which some of the people living in the home may not understand. This meant you had not always considered the impact of staff not engaging in people’s chosen language and how this risked being detrimental to people’s understanding and communicating.
We saw there was a survey in place so people could give feedback on the home, however concerns raised were not always acted upon. For example, in June 2025 a person raised concerns about the environment and cleanliness of the home, as we have reported upon, we found this concern had not been addressed.

The provider did not always ensure people received care which met their diverse needs and preferences.
For those living with dementia the environment has not been adapted to consider people’s individual and diverse needs. Upstairs in the home there were various corridors that all looked the same. There was no signage or prompts which directed service users to different areas of the home, which may promote independence and help facilitate safety for service users living with dementia. This meant the environment was not suitable for the individual needs of people living with dementia and left their safety and independence at risk.

We found people living with dementia or who needed support with mobility had differing access to areas of the home, the choices and the preference they had. For example, there were less opportunities for a shower or a bath.
 

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.
As people’s care was not always tailored to their needs, we could not be assured people always received equitable experiences. For example, we found, care plans were not always in place or reflective of their current needs. People were also not always aware of their care plans or what was recorded in them
We also saw people who needed more support from staff were not always provided with this and this meant they had a different experience that people who could do tasks for themselves. For example, fetch their own drinks and request an alternative meal. This placed people at risk of not receiving an equitable experience.
As previously reported people did not have their communication needs met which meant they were at risk of not experiencing an equitable service.
Leaders were aware of potential inequalities people receiving support may face and considered how protected characteristic may impact their care experience, however, they were not always proactive in ensuring individual needs were met.
 

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.
People had ‘death and dying’ care plans in place which reflected some choices and preferences during this time. In parts of the care plan, it would say staff to support persons wishes during this time however it was unclear what these wishes were.
When people were end of life care the care plan in place was not personalised and lacked detail that was specific to the person. For example, under personal care, it said determine if assistance is needed. There was no further information available about the specific needs for this person during this time. This placed people at risk of not receiving the support they wanted or needed during this time.