Ashbrook House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People told us staff treated them as individuals and they received consistently good, person-centred care and support from the same group of staff who were familiar with their needs, preferences and daily routines. Care records contained personalised information about people’s unique strengths, likes and dislikes, and how they preferred staff to meet their care needs and wishes. A member of staff told us, “We have a good track record of retaining staff here because it’s such a great place to work, so we all know exactly what people who stay here like and don’t like doing.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, and ensured care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People told us staff understood their or their family members care needs and that they worked well with multiple external health and social care professionals to consistently meet those needs. People received care and support from services that understood the diverse health and social care needs of their local communities. There is also continuity in people’s care because services were flexible, joined-up and delivered in a way that meets their assessed needs.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Managers and staff were aware of their responsibility to meet people’s communication needs and make information accessible. They ensured people were given information in a way they preferred and understood. For example, staff used easy to understand pictures, widget symbols and photographs conspicuously displayed in the communal areas of the care home. This helped ensure people knew which staff would be working on each shift, the daily meal options they could choose between from the menu, and how to make a complaint, report abuse and evacuate the building in the event of an emergency. The registered manager told us they had worked closely with the local positive behavioural support team to develop guidance so staff knew how to use objects of reference to communicate more effectively with one person living in the care home. Information about people’s preferred method of communication had been assessed and how to meet those needs was included in each person’s communication passport. An external care professional told us, “Staff communicate effectively with my clients who live at the care home.”

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

People and their relatives had regular opportunities to speak to the managers and staff and they felt listened to and involved in making decisions about the care and support they or their family members received. Managers and staff used a range of methods to encourage people to have their say and state their views about the care they received at Ashbrook house. This included regular one-to-one sessions with their designated keyworker, residents’ meetings, care plan reviews and satisfaction surveys. The registered manager told us, “To help us plan the weekly food menus and social activities programme we routinely talk to people living here to find out what they would like to eat and the social activities they enjoyed participating in, at home and in the local community.”

The service made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. The provider ensured people could access the care and support they needed when they needed it.

People had sufficient opportunities to engage in meaningful leisure and recreational activities that reflected their social interests. One person told us, “I enjoy listening to music, singing, reading, watching movies and playing games. I have lots of books and musical equipment in my bedroom, so I can read and play music whenever I want. I often play games and watch movies with staff, which I like.” A relative added, “They [staff] often take my [family member] out shopping and on trips, which he enjoys.” The care home was well-resourced with various arts and craft equipment, board games and puzzles. During our assessment we observed staff encourage and support people to engage in multiple recreational activities in the communal areas which included, colouring, doing puzzles, a quiz and karaoke. Others went out with staff to engage in preplanned social activities in the wider community including, attending a local day centre and walking in the park. People and their families were supported to be involved in discussions about people’s social interests, which was recorded in their care plan. Staff had also received specific training in meeting the social care needs and wishes of people living with a learning disability.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People were engaged and supported by managers and staff to be included and have the same opportunity as others to receive the care and support of their choice. Staff had received equality and diversity training and understood people had a right to be treated equally and fairly, and to receive care and support that met their specific needs. For example, managers and staff confirmed people had the right to choose the gender of staff who provided their intimate personal care.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

People did not require any support with end-of-life care at the time of our assessment. People and their families were supported to be involved in discussions and participate in decisions about their future care needs and end of life wishes. People’s care records included a section where individual’s end of life care and support needs and wishes were recorded. Where people and their families had declined to discuss end of life care wishes this decision was recorded in a person’s care plan and was regularly reviewed. Staff had received end of life care training.