Ashgale House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

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

This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Whilst people were overall treated with kindness, empathy and compassion and their dignity was respected, we observed some interactions where staff might not have demonstrated they showed respect for people’s privacy. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

During our assessment, we observed staff speaking about people in front of other people, including speaking about the emotional support they needed, instead of talking about these matters in private, such as in the office. This demonstrated that staff did not always show respect for people’s privacy.

Notwithstanding the above when staff engaged with people, they were kind and caring in their direct interactions with people.

People and their relative's said staff were kind and respectful towards them. One person said, “Staff are kind and help me daily.” A relative said, “I work locally so call in unannounced. They always seem to be having fun on the floor [person] lives on which is great to see.”

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care and support met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, and aspirations.

We observed that staff were kind and caring and generally knew people well. Most people who used the service did not use words to communicate. Whilst for some people staff had taken the time to learn how they communicated and were able to communicate well with them, we identified some shortfalls about how staff communicated with other people.

We noted, there were some people with whom staff did not meaningfully interact outside of the provision of basic care tasks. We were not assured that staff had the time to understand how those people communicated, One person used Makaton and regularly signed to staff. However, staff did not give any indication they understood when the person was communicating with them and did not respond.

Most other people communicated using gestures, vocalisations and body language, and staff mostly understood what they were communicating but there was little evidence that staff had the skills and knowledge to be able to support people to express their choices, wishes and aspirations in a consistent way.

During our visits, we observed staff treating some people in a different way compared to others. Some people who used the service were more outgoing and attracted more attention and meaningful engagement from staff, while others were quieter and we observed that staff did not proactively interact with them outside of the provision of personal care tasks.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence and did not always demonstrate an understanding of people’s social care needs and their right to be involved in the local community so people always have choice and control over their own care, wellbeing.

During our assessment we found that opportunities for meaningful activities were limited and not consistently provided. Each person had an ‘activities’ care plan however we saw that staff did not provide this support according to the care plan. For example, the activities care plans we reviewed said “[Person] is a sociable person who enjoys the company of others” however all four that we reviewed were not supported to spend time with other people or with activities of their choice. People were not supported to develop or maintain friendships outside of the home due to a lack of opportunities.

Some relatives reported that outings and activities were infrequent. One relative said, “I asked them they need to take [person] to the cinema, swimming classes and to the temple. They said they’ll look into it. They go for a walk with her. I see her watching television.”

Notwithstanding the above we observed staff supporting some people to go out for walks on the day of our visit to the home.

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We observed staff responding to people’s distress and anxiety positively. We observed two people becoming anxious and staff responded to them immediately and calmly, supporting them to move away from what was triggering their anxiety and soothing them.

Staff supported people to access external health and medical care services when they recognised that this was needed. Staff responded well to any immediate health care emergencies when they become aware of them to minimise the risk of people becoming distressed or unwell, emotionally and/or physically.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Supervisions were held on a regular basis where staff could openly discuss their wellbeing and their work to enable them to carry out their roles effectively. There was an up-to-date mental health and wellbeing policy in place which staff were aware of. The provider had a wellbeing service which was separate to the organisation which staff could reach out to if they needed to.

A member of staff told us, “If we have any personal worries or concerns, we can always speak to the manager in our supervisions or just pop in and see [manager]. [Manager] has an open-door policy.”

Staff felt valued by their leaders and their colleagues. They had a sense of belonging and felt they had the ability to contribute to decision making.