You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 25 August 2018

This unannounced comprehensive inspection was carried out on 25 July 2018.

Ashwood - Ware 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. Ashwood - Ware is a purpose-built care home and is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for up 64 older people some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection 53 people were living at Ashwood - Ware.

The home is built on a single level with wide corridors connecting the bungalows together. There were three enclosed garden areas for people to access outside space freely.

During our last comprehensive inspection on 13 July 2017 we identified breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 relating to safeguarding, risk assessment and governance. We rated the service requires improvement. Following the last inspection, we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the five key questions to at least good. At this inspection we found that all the areas we previously found not meeting the required standards were improved. People received care which was safe and met their individual needs.

There was a manager in post who had registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC). A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People and relatives, we spoke with told us they felt safe at the home. People`s needs were met by staff who knew them well and provided care and support to people in a personalised way.

People and staff told us they felt it was enough staff at all times to meet people`s needs in an effective and timely way. People`s privacy and dignity was promoted.

Risks to people`s wellbeing were assessed and plans were in place with clear guidance for staff to know how to keep people safe.

Staff knew how to protect people from the risk of abuse and promptly reported to the registered manager if they had any concerns about people`s welfare.

People received their medicines safely from staff who were trained and had their competencies assessed in the workplace.

Staff told us they received sufficient training to help them understand their role and they received support from their managers to carry out their responsibilities well.

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 support this practice.

Care plans were developed and personalised to ensure that staff were able to deliver care and support according to peoples` preferences, likes and dislikes.

People were supported to pursue their hobbies and interests and they were encouraged to participate in social activities.

People told us they were happy with the quality of the food they received and that drinks and snacks were widely available throughout the day.

The register manager was known to people and relatives. They worked alternate weekends with the deputy manager to ensure management support was available to people and staff over Saturdays and Sundays.

The providers systems and processes were effectively used by the registered manager to identify areas where the service needed improvement and we found that actions resulting from audits were addressed in a timely way.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 25 August 2018

The service was safe.

There were sufficient numbers of staff effectively deployed to meet people`s needs in a timely way.

Risks to people`s wellbeing were assessed and plans were in place to mitigate these and keep people safe.

People were protected from the risk of abuse by staff who were appropriately trained and knew how to report their concerns.

People were protected from the risk of infections and their medicines were managed safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 25 August 2018

The service was effective.

Staff received training in areas considered mandatory by the provider and they felt supported by their managers to carry out their role effectively.

Staff were observed to gain peoples consent prior to deliver any aspect of care.

Where people lacked capacity to make certain decisions, assessments were carried out in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts.

People had access to a range of healthcare professionals to support their needs when required.

Caring

Good

Updated 25 August 2018

The service was caring.

People's dignity and privacy was protected and promoted.

Staff spoke with people in a kind, sensitive manner and knew people�s needs well.

People were involved in planning and reviewing the care and support they received.

Confidential information was kept secure.

Responsive

Good

Updated 25 August 2018

The service was responsive.

People`s care plans were personalised and accurately reflected people`s current needs.

People were happy with the activities provided in the home.

People�s end of life wishes were known to staff who delivered care and support in line with people`s preferences, likes and dislikes.

People were aware of how to make a complaint or raise concerns and complaints were addressed and responded to in line with the provider`s policy.

Well-led

Good

Updated 25 August 2018

The service was well led.

People and staff told us the service was well-led and the registered manager was responsive to their needs.

The providers governance systems were effectively used by the registered manager to constantly improve the service people received.

Actions resulting from various audits carried out by the registered manager and the provider were addressed and completed in a timely way.

There were plans to improve the environment where people living with dementia were accommodated.

Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities and felt listened to and valued by the registered manager and provider.