• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Ashcroft Lodge - Doncaster

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

18 Field Road, Thorne, Doncaster, South Yorkshire, DN8 4AF (01405) 812128

Provided and run by:
Autism Plus Limited

All Inspections

13 October 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 13 October 2015 and was unannounced. Our last inspection of this service took place in November 2013 when no breaches of legal requirements were identified.

Ashcroft Lodge is based in Thorne on the outskirts of Doncaster. The service is registered to provide accommodation and care for six people who have autistic spectrum disorders. It consists of two, linked houses. The Lodge is a four bedded house for people who have complex needs and who require one to one staffing for their care. The Cottage provides care and accommodation for two people who are relatively independent and working towards more independent living.

At the time of our visit there were three people living at the Lodge and two people living at the Cottage.

The service did not have a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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. There was a new manager, who was completing the necessary tasks in order to apply to be registered.

Some people we spoke with had limited verbal communication. However, they very clearly indicated they felt safe and were happy living in the home, liked the staff and did the activities they liked to do.

People’s medicines were well managed generally, except that the temperature that people’s medicines were stored at was not monitored.

Staff we spoke with had a clear understanding of safeguarding people and they were confident their managers and the rest of their team would act appropriately to safeguard people from abuse.

The support plans we looked at included risk assessments, which identified any risks associated with people’s care and had been devised to help minimise and monitor the risks without placing undue restrictions on people.

We saw that the control and prevention of infection was managed well and that staff had been trained in infection control. Despite building alterations work being undertaken in the Lodge, everywhere was very clean and there were effective health and safety audits in place.

There were enough staff to keep people safe and to meet people’s individual needs, and the staff told us they received good training and support.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) sets out what must be done to make sure that the human rights of people who may lack mental capacity to make decisions are protected. MCA assessments and ‘best interests’ decisions had been made where there were doubts about a person’s capacity to make a specific decision. DoLS applications had been made to the local authority.

There was good guidance for staff regarding how people expressed pain or discomfort, so they could respond appropriately and seek input from health care professionals, if necessary. People had access to a good range of health care services and staff actively advocated for people if they felt health care services were not as responsive as they should be.

People were supported to have a good, well balanced diet and people’s individual needs and choices were catered for.

Specialist equipment was provided to meet people’s individual needs. For instance, one person had a special, adapted bath in their en-suite. People were involved in choices about the décor of their homes.

Staff retention was good, and staff knew people well and had built good relationships. There was also a good mix of staff.

Staff spoke to people in a caring and positive way, treated people with respect and were mindful of their rights and dignity. There was a nice, relaxed atmosphere and people were relaxed and smiling in the staff’s presence.

There were very good care and support plans and information for staff about people’s likes and dislikes and we saw that staff were very good at monitoring people’s reactions and responses and responding to people in positive way.

We found that staff respected people’s spiritual and cultural needs. Staff were knowledgeable about this aspect of people’s needs and this information was also clearly reflected in people’s care and support plans. The care plans themselves were detailed and thoughtful and included pictures and photographs to enhance people’s understanding and involvement.

The people we spoke with who lived in the cottage said they liked living there and it was clear from our observation that the people who lived in the Lodge were happy and relaxed in their home.

People had very full lives, engaging in lots of activities, and this included in the evenings and at weekends. They were encouraged to keep in touch with the people who were important to them, such as their family members.

People and their close family members, were encouraged to make their views known about their care. An independent advocate had sometimes helped people with this. An advocate is someone who speaks up on people’s behalf.

The complaints process was clear and people’s comments and complaints were taken very seriously, investigated and responded to in a timely way. People didn’t have any complaints to tell us about and indicated they were happy living at Ashcroft Lodge.

The manager was very person centred in her approach. Person centred care is when staff understand what is important to the person and give them the right care and support to do the things they want. She was very keen to find more ways to seek people’s feedback, and use it to improve the service, particularly the people who had limited verbal communication.

The staff we met were very enthusiastic and professional, and were good communicators. They told us they were well supported by a very open management team.

There was a good range of quality and safety audits, undertaken by staff, managers and external verifiers.

People had a chance to say what they thought about the service and the service learned from its mistakes, using comments, complaint and incidents as an opportunity for learning or improvement.

22 November 2013

During a routine inspection

During the inspection we spoke with three people who used the service. They spoke positively about the care and support they received. They told us the staff were kind and met their needs. They said they enjoyed living at the home and participated in various activities such as going to the day centre and on outings. Staff we spoke with showed commitment to provide a high standard of care at the service. Throughout our inspection we observed good interactions and found people who used the service were relaxed and happy in the care of the staff.

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. We saw staff delivered the care required and people's needs were being identified and met.

People's health, safety and welfare was protected when more than one provider was involved in their care and treatment, or when they moved between different services. This was because the provider worked in co-operation with others. We found the provider liaised with relevant agencies to ensure appropriate assessments were carried out when people were transferred to the service.

People were protected from the risk of infection because appropriate guidance had been followed. People were cared for in a clean, hygienic environment.

People were cared for, or supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. Staff we spoke with had a very good understanding of the physical and emotional needs of people who used the service.

The provider had an effective system to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

5 February 2013

During a routine inspection

Some of the people who used the service were unable to speak with us because of their complex needs. We were able to speak to two people who used the service and observed the care people received. People who spoke with us were positive about living at the home. We found people were happy and relaxed with the staff who supported them.

Where people did not have the capacity to consent, the provider acted in accordance with legal requirements. Staff enabled people to make choices about their care and how they wanted to spend their time, even where their understanding and communication was limited.

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. Staff demonstrated a good knowledge of people's needs.

People were provided with a choice of suitable and nutritious food and drink. Staff encouraged people to eat their food and drink as independently as possible, providing support and assistance where required.

Appropriate arrangements were in place for the safe administration of medicines. Staff had received training in medicine management.

There were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. People were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

There was an effective complaints system available. People who used the service were encouraged to raise any concerns or suggestions.

26 March 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

When we visited the service in November 2011 we spoke with people who used the service. They told us they were very satisfied with their care and felt safe in the home.

At this follow up visit, people who used the service were out in the community so we did not have an opportunity to speak with them.

18 November 2011

During a routine inspection

People who used the service told us about how they liked the service and about the varied activities they were engaged in. People confirmed to us that pictures and symbols were used to communicate with them.

A relative spoke about how the service respected people's privacy and dignity, 'If my relative is having private time in his room, and I ring, they won't knock on his door and interrupt.' The relative told us information about their relative's activities was shared with them. They said, 'I am really impressed that communications about activities are shared.'

People we spoke with felt safe in the home, and this was confirmed by relatives we spoke with.

We spoke with people about the staff that worked with them. A person told us, 'Staff make me feel better; they look after me if I go out.' A relative we spoke with said, 'Most of the staff here have a really good understanding of autism.'

A relative told us about a recent parent question time which they attended. They said they felt the event was presented mainly from the provider's angle and did not fully address what relatives wanted.