The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Ashchurch House

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

6 Chase House Gardens, Emerson Park, Hornchurch, Essex, RM11 2PJ (01708) 473202

Provided and run by:
Ashchurch House Limited

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

About the service

 

Ashchurch House is a residential care home that provides accommodation and personal care for up to 10 people. At the time of the inspection 9 people were living at the service and 4 people were on holidays.

The accommodation is arranged over 2 levels. The ground floor is accessible for people with physical disabilities or restricted mobility.

Who the service is for

Ashchurch House is a 10-bed service providing support and accommodation to people with a learning disability.

Key findings

We carried out this assessment on 6 October 2026 to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus if we found any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

We assessed the service against Right support, right care, right culture guidance to determine whether it ensured people with a learning disability and autistic people received respect, equality, dignity, choice, independence and access to their local community. The service worked in line with the principles of Right support, right care, right culture. People were supported to exercise choice and control, maintain important relationships and participate in activities within their local community.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. Staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

People told us they felt safe living at the home and relatives spoke positively about the care and support provided. A person told us, “Yes, I do feel safe here. Staff respect me.” We also used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. Observations during the site visits showed staff interacting positively with people.

The environment was clean, well maintained and free from hazards. The menus, and activity schedules were displayed and it included images and wording tailored for the people needs. The provider carried out various checks on the physical environment to help ensure it was safe. These included tests by qualified contractors relating to health and safety, fire, gas, electricals and water safety to ensure the premises were safe for people.

Staffing levels were stable, and staff described feeling well supported by visible and approachable leaders. We observed kind, respectful and unhurried interactions between staff and people. Staff supported people safely explaining what they were doing and offered reassurance. Records showed staff had undertaken training to support their knowledge and understanding of how to keep people safe. They knew of their responsibilities to protect people from harm. However, we found the provider did not organise routine appraisals meetings with all staff. The registered manager told us they were new to the post and assured us they would plan appraisal meetings for all staff in the coming weeks.

Care plans were detailed and covered key areas of people’s needs and risks. People and their relatives confirmed they were involved in planning and reviews of their care. Risks to people were assessed and management plans were in place to inform staff how to reduce and manage risks to maintain people’s safety. For example, we saw risk assessments had been undertaken for people who were at risk of falls, and malnutrition.

A system was in place to record and monitor incidents within the service. We saw evidence that staff were encouraged to shared safeguarding concerns. People we spoke with confirmed they were informed when incidents involving their relative occurred. We saw the evidence where provider reported safeguarding concerns with the appropriate government bodies where appropriate. However, we found actions taken by the registered manager were not always recorded. We brought this to the registered manager attention they assured us they will improve on this.

Medicines were managed in a safe way. Medicines administration charts were maintained. We saw these had been competed accurately, and they were regularly audited by a senior member of staff. A relatives told us they saw staff wear gloves when administering medicines to people.

Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of people’s individual needs, preferences, and personal circumstances, enabling them to develop positive, respectful, and trusting relationships.

The service promoted an open, inclusive, and person-centred culture. Staff, people using the service, relatives, and external professionals were actively encouraged to contribute to the ongoing development and continuous improvement of the service.

The provider maintained effective partnerships with the local community and relevant organisations, supporting a coordinated and collaborative approach to delivering high-quality care.

The quality assurance and governance systems were in place to monitor the quality, safety, and effectiveness of the service. The registered manager was supported by a deputy manager and an area manager to ensure the service is run smoothly. These processes supported continuous learning, identified areas for improvement, and helped drive positive outcomes for people using the service.

18 September 2017

During a routine inspection

Ashchurch House is a 10 bed service providing support and accommodation to people with a learning disability. The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values should include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

The accommodation is arranged over two levels. The ground floor is accessible for people with physical disabilities or restricted mobility. At the time of the inspection seven people were living at the service. We inspected the service on 18 and 22 September 2017.

The service had a registered manager. The 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 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. At the last inspection on 17 December 2014 the service met the requirements of the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

We have made two recommendations about involving people in decisions regarding diversity and about involving people in choices regarding their diet.

People told us they felt safe using the service and appropriate safeguarding procedures were in place. Risk assessments were completed and management plans put in place to enable people to receive safe care and support. Staff had good understanding about infection control procedures and used protective clothing to prevent the spread of infection. Lessons were learnt when accidents and incidents occurred to help improve service.

There were effective and up-to-date systems in place to maintain the safety of the premises and equipment. We found there were enough staff working at the service and recruitment checks were in place to ensure new staff were suitable to work at the service. Medicines were administered and managed safely.

People’s needs were assessed before they began using the service. People using the service had access to healthcare professionals as required to meet their needs.

Staff received supervision, appraisals and training in line with the provider’s policies and procedures. Staff had a clear understanding of the application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Appropriate applications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations had been made.

Personalised support plans were in place for people using the service. Staff knew people they were supporting including their preferences to ensure personalised support was delivered. Staff had a good understanding of how to promote people’s privacy, independence and dignity.

People and their relatives told us the service was caring and we observed staff supporting people in a caring and respectful manner. Staff respected people’s privacy and dignity and encouraged independence. People were supported to maintain their nutrition.

People using the service knew how to make a complaint. Meetings took place for staff and people using the service. The service had systems in place to seek the views of people on the running of the service. The provider had quality assurance systems in place to identify areas of improvement. People and staff told us the registered manager was supportive and approachable.

17 December 2014

During a routine inspection

This unannounced inspection took place on 17 December 2014. At the last inspection in December 2013, the registered provider was compliant with all the regulations we assessed.

Ashchurch House is a 10 bed service providing support and accommodation to people with a learning disability. At the time of the inspection nine people were living there. The house is situated in a quiet residential area close to public transport and other services. Special adaptations have been made to the bath and shower rooms to enable people to use these safely. The home is accessible downstairs for people with physical disabilities or restricted mobility. People live in a clean and safe environment that is suitable for their needs.

A registered manager was 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 staff we spoke with were able to tell us how they ensured that people were protected and kept safe. All staff had received training about safeguarding people. There were sufficient qualified and experienced staff to meet people’s needs.

We found that medicines were managed safely by staff and records confirmed that people received the medicines prescribed by their doctor.

Due to their health conditions and complex needs not all of the people were able to share their views about the service they received. However, during our visit we saw that people were relaxed and enjoyed good relationships with the staff. Staff spent time with people and they told us they enjoyed working at the home and had adequate time to complete their duties.

We observed lunch being served which was relaxed. Staff provided assistance to people in a sensitive manner. The menus were varied and staff were aware of people’s likes, dislikes and special diets.

Records showed that appropriate training was provided and staff were supervised and supported by management. The staff on duty confirmed this. We saw them meeting people’s needs in a competent manner and they respected their privacy and dignity.

Health care professionals were contacted when necessary so that people’s health needs were addressed in order to keep them well. Activities and outings were provided according to people’s preferences.

The registered provider had a complaints procedure in place. People and their relatives were aware of this and felt confident to use it if necessary.

We examined three care records and found people’s individual needs had been assessed and care plans were in place to give staff information about how they should meet these needs.

We found that the home was well-maintained. Records we looked at showed that the required health and safety checks were carried out.

The registered manager carried out audits and checks to help ensure standards were met and maintained. Relatives and people’s views were sought to gain their opinion of the service and the comments were positive. Action plans had been put in place so any suggestions could be addressed and service improvement could be made.

3 December 2013

During a routine inspection

People's consent was sought and their views and experiences were taken into account in the way the service was delivered. Care was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan because people's needs were fully assessed. Staff were caring and supportive to people. Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of people's needs and how these should be met. They used a range of methods to promote effective communication with people and involved them as much as possible in decisions about their care. There was evidence that people had been supported to have their healthcare needs met as required.

We found that people who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had policies and procedures in place and staff knew about them. The premises were safe and accessible to people who used the service.

People's needs were met by staff who were appropriately recruited, qualified, experienced and supported to carry out their role. A member of staff told us " we get all the training to do our job, the staff are nice and it is a really good team. I can talk to the manager whenever I want." The manager and the provider monitored the quality of the service via visits and audits. People who used the service and their relatives were asked for their opinions about the service provided. Action was taken to address any issues that were identified.

21 February 2013

During a routine inspection

Due to people's largely non verbal communication we only had limited discussions with them. One person when asked if they were treated well smiled and said 'yes.' We spoke with a relative who told us their sister was treated with respect and enabled to make choices. They said 'I think they help her to make a choice, they show her different clothes to wear.' We found that care plans and risk assessments were in place for people. These were person centred, clearly setting out how to meet people's individual needs. Records showed that people had access to health care professionals including GP's, opticians and psychiatrists.

We found that people's nutritional needs were being met. A relative said "they do monitor her, they have a sort of monitoring chart. They check her weight and drinking." We observed that people were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts. We found that medications were stored securely, and administered in a safe manner. Staff had access to regular on-going training, although some staff did not have supervision as regularly as the manager told us they were supposed to have it.