Ashfield House - New Milton

Updated 9 August 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection was carried out by one inspector over two days.

Service and service type

Ashfield House 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 service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We checked notifications made to us by the provider., These notifications reflect changes, events and incidents that affect the service or the people who use it. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with one person who lived at the service to gather their views. We observed how care and support was provided to others in communal areas. We spoke with nine members of staff including the area manager, registered manager, care workers, the chef, maintenance and domestic staff.

We reviewed records. This included people’s care records and medication records. We looked at two staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision.

After the inspection

We spoke with, or had information from, two relatives and one professional who regularly visited the service.

Updated 9 August 2019

The inspection took place over two days on 20 June and 2 July 2019. The first day was unannounced. At our last inspection we rated the service as good. There were no breaches in regulations but we said some improvement could be made to the 'effective' domain as some décor needed to be updated or replaced and the service needed to demonstrate more clearly how they were following the principles of The Mental Capacity Act 2005. At this inspection we found these improvements had been made.

Ashfield House is situated in a residential area of New Milton. The service provides care and support for up to nine people with a learning disability. At the time of the inspection the service was home to seven people. Most people had lived at the service or at a local service managed by the same provider for over 20 years.

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.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People continued to receive safe care.

People were safe and staff knew how to keep them safe from harm. There were enough staff deployed to support people’s individual needs and this helped to ensure people were able to go out every day if this was their wish. The provider had a recruitment process to ensure they had enough staff to support people safely. People received their medicines as prescribed. Staff followed infection control guidance. Accidents and incidents were monitored.

People received effective care.

Since the last inspection some people’s health needs had increased. The service had taken appropriate action to ensure they followed advice from health care professionals and by ensuring they had adapted equipment in place to promote their independence. Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. People's nutritional needs were met.

People continued to receive caring care.

Staff were kind and caring. We observed easy, friendly relationships between people living at the service and staff. Staff spoke about people knowledgably and fondly. Staff and people living at the service shared communal spaces. They ate together and relaxed together. This promoted an extended family atmosphere. Staff supported and encouraged people to be involved in how decisions were made about their support. People's privacy dignity and independence were respected.

People continued to receive responsive care.

Staff knew people well. Their support needs were assessed and planned to ensure they received the support they needed. People took part in activities which reflected their interests. Likes and dislikes were known to staff. The provider had a complaint process, which people were aware of, to share any concerns.

The service continued to be well managed.

The registered manager led by example. There was an established staff team. There were good audit systems in place to ensure the service continued to meet people's needs.