Ashbury Lodge Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good.

This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

At the previous assessment lessons were not always learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. There was no process to review incidents where there had been altercations between people. At this assessment we saw a process had been developed to review incidents relating to physical altercations. Actions were taken to reduce the risk. This included changing where a person lived in the service to increase staff oversight and reduce their risk of falls. The registered manager said they had oversight of incidents and undertook ‘lessons learnt’ discussions with staff. For example, falls were shared with staff in handover meetings and staff meetings.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

At the last assessment the provider had not shared safeguarding concerns appropriately. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made and the provider had shared safeguarding concerns with relevant authorities. One person we spoke with said they felt safe in the home and would speak with the staff if they had any concerns. Staff confirmed the actions they would take to report concerns around safeguarding. Following a safeguarding incident, the registered manager had taken action to reduce risks to people. This included updating care plans and risk assessments and reviewing the security arrangements within the service.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. At the last assessment we found people’s needs were not being met safely and care and support plans were not being followed. At this assessment we found improvements had been made and risks to people were being managed safely. Staff had the necessary information and followed steps to reduce risks set out in care plans. Appropriate equipment was in place to reduce the risk of injury to people. We saw a care plan to help reduce the risk of developing a urinary tract infection was being followed, and the registered manager had effective oversight of this.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

At the previous assessment, we identified several health and safety concerns, including issues with fire doors and trailing wires in a person’s bedroom. At this assessment we found improvements had been made. Fire doors had been replaced and assessed by a relevant professional as safe, and there were no trip hazards or trailing wires. The registered manager carried out regular checks of the environment to identify risks and put in place any mitigation required. Equipment was inspected and maintained by suitably qualified professionals, and systems were in place to ensure repairs were reported and completed promptly.

We did not look at Safe and effective staffing during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

At the previous assessment, we identified several infection prevention control (IPC) concerns, including unpleasant odours in some bathrooms. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made. The service was clean, equipment was well maintained, and there were no odours. The registered manager completed regular IPC audits of the environment and staff practice. Personal protective equipment and hand-washing facilities were readily available throughout the service.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.