• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Ashbury - Taunton

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Six Acres Close, Roman Road, Taunton, Somerset, TA1 2BD (01823) 327713

Provided and run by:
Somerset County Council - Specialist Public Health Nursing

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

6 January 2016

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 6 January 2016 and was an unannounced inspection.

Ashbury-Taunton is a single storey building situated close to Taunton town centre. The home can accommodate up to nine people and it specialises in providing care to adults who have a learning disability. Ashbury has a range of aids and adaptations in place to assist people who have mobility difficulties. All bedrooms are for single occupancy. The home is staffed 24 hours a day.

At the time of our inspection there were six people living at the home and one person was in hospital. The people we met with had complex physical and learning disabilities and were not able to tell us about their experiences of life at the home. We therefore used our observations of care and our discussions with staff to help form our judgements.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

The registered manager was not available for this inspection; however information sent to us prior to the inspection told us the registered manager had a clear vision for the service. This was also confirmed by the staff we spoke with.

People were supported by a caring staff team who knew them well. Staff morale was good and there was a happy and relaxed atmosphere in the home.

Routines in the home were flexible and were based around the needs and preferences of the people who lived there. People were able to plan their day with staff and they were supported to access social and leisure activities in the home and local community.

The home was a safe place for people. Staffing levels were good and staff understood people’s needs and provided the care and support they needed.

Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse. They had received training in safeguarding adults from abuse and they knew the procedures to follow if they had concerns.

People’s health care needs were monitored and met. People received good support from health and social care professionals. Staff were skilled at communicating with people, especially if people were unable to communicate verbally.

People were unable to look after their own medicines. Staff made sure medicines were stored securely and there were sufficient supplies of medicines. People received their medicines when they needed them.

People were always asked for their consent before staff assisted them with any tasks and staff knew the procedures to follow to make sure people’s legal and human rights were protected.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided.

16 October 2013

During a routine inspection

When we visited seven people were using the service. People had very complex needs and were unable to engage in conversations with us. We were able to observe how staff interacted with people and we spoke to staff about the experiences of the people they supported.

People were supported to make decisions and choices about all aspects of their daily lives. Staff used a range of formats to enable people to make informed choices. These included photographs, signing and objects of reference.

Staff interactions were kind and professional and people appeared very comfortable with the staff who supported them. We saw that staff were very skilled in recognising and responding to changes in people's behaviour which may indicate that they were unhappy or becoming distressed. The staff we spoke with had a very good understanding about the needs and preferences of the people they supported.

The home followed appropriate procedures for the management and administration of medicines. People received their prescribed medicines when they needed them.

Staff felt well supported and systems were in place to ensure that staff received up to date training appropriate to their role and the people they supported.

Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service people received.

29 November 2012

During a routine inspection

When we visited seven people were using the service. Three people were out but we were able to meet with four people who remained at the home. One person went out with a member of staff shortly after we arrived. The people who lived at the home had very complex needs and were unable to engage in conversations with us. We were however able to observe how staff interacted with people and we spoke to two staff about the experiences of the people they supported.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Records showed that decisions had been made in people's best interests and that appropriate parties had been consulted.

Staff were skilled in recognising and responding to people who were unable to express their needs and wishes verbally. We saw that people responded positively to staff interactions.

We found all areas of the home to be well maintained. The standard of d'cor and furnishings were good and helped to promote a homely feel. People had access to the specialised equipment they needed.

There were sufficient staff on duty to meet the needs of the people who lived at the home. There was a clear staffing structure in place which meant that senior staff were available to support less experienced staff.

The home had a range of policies and procedures in place to protect the rights of the people who lived at the home. All records had been stored securely.

5 October 2011

During a routine inspection

Given the limited or non-verbal communication of people using the service, we spent the majority of our visit in communal areas observing how people were involved in making decisions about their day to day life and how they were offered choices.

People appeared very comfortable in the presence of staff and it was evident that staff knew people well. They were skilled in recognising and responding to people's needs even though people were unable to make their needs known verbally. Interactions were noted to be kind and respectful. The atmosphere in the home was relaxed and inclusive and people were offered assistance with personal care in a dignified and discreet manner. Staff explained all interventions to people before carrying them out and we saw that staff respected people's decision to refuse or to change their mind. People who were unable to mobilise without staff assistance were offered choices about where they wanted to spend time.

On arrival at the home, three people were getting ready to go out with staff and one person was out walking with a member of staff. People appeared very comfortable and relaxed in the presence of staff and all responded positively to staff interactions. We observed staff interacting with people in a very kind and patient manner and it was clear that staff knew the needs, abilities and preferences of each person very well. Staff were skilled in how they communicated with each individual demonstrating a very clear understanding of each person's preferred form of communication.