You are here

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 15 March 2016

The inspection was unannounced and carried out on the 18 January 2016.

The service was last inspected on 04 September 2013 when we found the service was complaint with all the regulations assessed at that time.

Ashwood Court is a residential care home situated in Lowton, Greater Manchester. The home is owned and managed by Making Space. The home is in close proximity to local amenities and on a bus route. The home is on one level and provides care and support for up to 17 adults who are living with a mental health diagnosis. There were 17 people living at the home at the time of the inspection, varying in age from 32 to 107.

There was a registered manager 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.

People, relatives and visiting healthcare professionals spoke positively about the staff and care provided. It was observed during the inspection that staff understood people’s needs, maintained people’s confidentiality and liaised with external agencies timely and appropriately.

Staff went through a robust recruitment process before working at the home. During the inspection we observed sufficient staff were deployed to meet people’s needs.

People had comprehensive risk assessments which were reviewed regularly and changed timely to meet people’s needs. People and their relatives were involved in the assessments and planning of their health and social care. Regular reviews were undertaken and people’s views were listened too and acted on.

Staff received safeguarding training and were able to tell us how they would identify and report safeguarding concerns. Medicines were stored and administered safely.

Staff were supported through induction, supervision and training to promote better outcomes for people.

We received a mixed response from staff regarding their understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We saw staff had received training but upon reporting our findings at the end of the inspection, staff were scheduled to attend further training. We have made a recommendation about the application of the acid test in making decisions regarding DoLS.

We saw staff assessed peoples’ nutritional needs and people had been consulted through resident meetings regarding the menus. People were offered choice at mealtimes and were also able to make their own snacks throughout the day.

People were supported by staff that were compassionate and treated them with dignity and respect.

The home was warm and welcoming. It was clean, free from offensive odours and was decorated and maintained. People had personalised their bedroom with pictures and ornaments. We saw people visiting throughout our inspection. Visitors told us they were always welcomed and said that communication with the service was good.

There was a positive atmosphere throughout the home and people spoke positively about the support provided. Staff were described as ‘understanding people’s needs and going the extra mile’.

Feedback was sought from people, relatives and staff through meetings, surveys and suggestions We saw the home had received compliments from relatives and healthcare professionals since our last inspection. People told us they knew how to make a complaint and felt comfortable to do this should they need to.

Relatives and people living at the home told us they thought the home was well-led and that the management was approachable. We received positive feedback about the service from three social care professionals

A range of audits were undertaken to help monitor and improve the quality and safety of the service. We saw actions were implemented timely following any deficits identified. Management understood their legal requirements and notifications had been submitted to CQC.

Inspection areas



Updated 15 March 2016

The service was safe.

There was a robust recruitment system in place for recruiting suitable staff to work with vulnerable people. There was sufficient staff on duty to meet people’s needs.

Medicines were stored and administered safely.

Staff knew how to recognise and respond to safeguarding concerns appropriately.


Requires improvement

Updated 15 March 2016

The service was effective.

Staff received regular training to enable them to provide effective care and support based on current knowledge to guide best practice.

People were supported to make decisions and exercised choice and control over their daily lives.

People’s families and advocates were involved in decision making when people lacked capacity to make their own decisions.

People were supported to eat a balanced and nutritious diet. People who used the service and their relatives were complimentary about the food provided.



Updated 15 March 2016

The service was caring.

People were treated as individuals and encouraged to make choices about their care.

Staff had developed good relationships with people and we observed positive interactions between people and staff.

People were treated with dignity and respect. Staff understood how to maintain people’s privacy and their records were kept confidential.



Updated 15 March 2016

The service was responsive.

People received care that was based on their individual needs and preferences. People were involved in their assessments, care and empowered to live their lives the way they wanted.

People engaged in activities, holidays and were encouraged to maintain family contacts.

People’s views and opinions were actively sought. People knew how to complain and share their experiences. There was a complaints system in place to show that concerns and complaints were investigated, responded and used to improve the quality of the service.



Updated 15 March 2016

The service was well led.

The views of people living at the home and other, relevant people were

actively obtained.

Systems were in place for checking and if needed improving the quality of the service provided.