You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 April 2018

We previously carried out an unannounced comprehensive inspection of this service on 8 and 20 July 2017. At that time Ashlyn was rated ‘Inadequate’ due to insufficient staffing levels, the provision of unsafe care and treatment, poor risk management and a lack of person-centred care which meant that people’s preferences were not known or upheld. We also found a lack of leadership and oversight of the quality and safety of the service. During the inspection of July 2017 we found breaches of Regulation 9, 12, 17 and 18 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Due to the high level of concerns regarding the breach of Regulation 9 (person-centred care) we served the Provider with a Warning Notice. This document set out where the service was failing and required the provider to address our concerns within a specific time frame. As a result of our inspection the service was placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure that providers found to be providing inadequate care significantly improve within a set timeframe.

Following our inspection and subsequent enforcement action, the provider supplied us with an action plan, which set out what they would do to meet the legal requirements in relation to the breaches and to improve the service. We then undertook a further comprehensive inspection to check that the service had implemented their action plan and to confirm that they now met the legal requirements. At this inspection we found that the service had followed its plan to address the breaches and those aspects of the service that required improvement which meant that the service now met the legal requirements and was no longer in breach of the regulations.

The inspection took place during the day and into the evening of 19 March 2018 and was unannounced.

Ashlyn is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The care home accommodates 60 people in one building, over two floors. At the time of our inspection there were 40 people living at the service some of whom were living with dementia.

Since the previous inspection the provider had recruited a new manager who was going through the process of applying to become the 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.

Significant improvements had been made in terms of oversight of the service at both manager and provider level. Quality assurance mechanisms were now in place which were effective at identifying and addressing areas of the service that required improvement. A new style of leadership had been adopted by the new manager which reflected a more ‘hands-on’ approach. The visibility and approachability of the new manager had improved staff morale and the staff reported that they now felt listened to and supported. This had a knock on effect on people who lived at the service who reported that there was a much nicer atmosphere in their home.

The new manager had made a positive impact on the culture of the service. Teamwork had improved and staff felt valued. The manager was a role model for staff and promoted the vision and values of the service which included putting the needs of people first and treating people as individuals.

Staffing numbers had been increased and systems and processes for care recording had been streamlined which meant staff had more time to spend with people and could safely meet their needs. Improvements in staffing levels and how staff were deployed also meant that people’s routines a

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 25 April 2018

The service was safe. There were sufficient staff who had been safely recruited to meet people’s needs. Medicines were well managed. Staff were aware of the risks to people and knew how to safeguard people from abuse. The environment was safe and good infection control practices were adhered to.

Effective

Good

Updated 25 April 2018

The service was effective. Staff felt well supported and received training and supervision to support their competence. Staff understood the importance of obtaining consent before providing care and support. People were encouraged to eat and drink and had access to a range of healthcare professionals, as required.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 April 2018

The service was caring. Staff knew people well and included them in decisions about their care and support. People’s dignity, privacy and independence was promoted. Visitors were made welcome at the service

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 April 2018

The service was responsive. People’s individual needs had been assessed and they received care and support that reflected their preferred routines and choices. People were supported to engage in activities at home and in the community. Complaints were dealt with appropriately.

Well-led

Good

Updated 25 April 2018

The service was well led. New leadership had improved staff morale and teamwork. Staff, people and relatives felt listened to and included in how the service was run. The systems and processes in place effectively measured the safety and quality of the service and identified areas requiring improvement.