Ashking House

About the service

Ashking 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.

Ashking House provides accommodation and personal care for up to 7 people in 1 2-storey building. At the time of our inspection there were 7 people living at the home, all of whom had a learning disabilities and autism.

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

Right Support:

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; the policies and systems in the home supported this practice. The model of care at Ashking House maximised people's choice, control and independence. Staff were committed to supporting people in line with their preferences and supported people to receive their medicines safely and as prescribed.

People were supported to access healthcare services to promote their wellbeing and help them to live healthy lives. Staff managed risks to minimise restrictions, focusing on what people could do for themselves.

The home had effective infection, prevention and control measures to keep people safe, including good arrangements for keeping the premises clean and hygienic.

Right Care:

Staff delivered care in line with information in people's care plans and recognised models of care for people with a learning disability or autistic people. This ensured people were receiving care tailored to them which promoted a good quality of life.

Staff understood people's individual communication styles they had developed a good rapport with them. People were supported to develop and maintain relationships, follow interests and take part in activities that were socially and culturally relevant to them.

People were kept safe from avoidable harm because staff knew them well and understood how to protect them from abuse. Staff had training on how to recognise and report abuse and they knew how to apply it.

The registered manager worked well with other agencies to safeguard people. Investigations into incidents had been used as an opportunity to learn lessons, change practice, and drive improvement. Staff recruitment, induction and training processes promoted safety, including those for agency staff. People were supported by staff who had received a wide range of relevant and good quality training to meet their needs.

Right Culture:

There was a positive culture at the home and people benefited from being supported by happy staff and this was reflected in the atmosphere at the home. Staff turnover was very low. People received consistent care from staff who knew them well. Staff told us they enjoyed their job and making a positive difference to someone's life.

The home had effective governance arrangements to assess the quality and safety of the service. These were used to identify and drive improvement. Systems were in place to apologise to people, and those important to them, when things went wrong.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for Ashking House was good (published 02 July 2018).

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the 'all reports' link for Ashking House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on when the home was previously inspected.

This was a focused inspection and the report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions Safe and Well-led. For those key questions not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about Ashking House, which will help inform when we next inspect.

Ashking 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.

Ashking House provides accommodation and personal care for up to seven people in one two-storey building. At the time of our inspection there were seven people living at the home, all of whom had a learning disability. The home is managed and run by Allied Care Limited, a large organisation who owns services throughout the UK.

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 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.” Registering the Right Support CQC policy.

There was a manager in post who had recently started running the service. They had applied to be registered. 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.

There were systems and processes in place to protect people from the risk of harm. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

Checks were carried out during the recruitment process to ensure only suitable staff were employed.

There were arrangements in place for the safe management of people’s medicines and regular checks were undertaken.

The service was clean and had effective systems to protect people by the prevention and control of infection.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The provider was aware of their responsibilities and had acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

People’s nutritional and healthcare needs had been assessed and were met.

People were supported by staff who were suitably trained, supervised and appraised.

Staff were caring and treated people with dignity and respect. Care plans addressed each person’s individual needs, including what was important to them, and how they wanted to be supported.

People were involved in undertaking activities of their choice. People were cared for in a way that took account of their diversity, values and human rights.

Where appropriate, people’s end of life wishes were discussed and recorded.

People living at the home, their relatives and stakeholders told us that the management team was approachable and supportive. People and their relatives were supported to raise concerns and make suggestions about where improvements could be made.

The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and ensure that areas for improvement were identified and addressed.

The registered manager kept themselves informed of developments within the social care sector and cascaded important information to the rest of the staff team. This helped ensure that staff were informed and felt valued.

We found that there were sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs. A member of staff said “staffing is fine. There are three staff plus one ‘floater’ during the day and we can ask for extra staff when needed for activities and appointments.”

People were given meals that they liked and that met their nutritional needs. A relative told us “they know how to ‘feed’ him and they know what he needs and likes.” It was very hot on the day of the visit and we saw that people were encouraged and supported to have regular drinks. People were protected from the risks of unsafe or inappropriate care because accurate and appropriate records were maintained.