Ashfield House - Raunds

Updated 31 July 2026

Ashfield House is a care home without nursing, providing accommodation and personal care for up to 40 people including those living with dementia, mental health conditions. At the time of the assessment, 35 people were living at the service.

This was a routine assessment carried out between 10 August and 21 August 2026, including site visits on 10, 11 and 19 August 2026. The assessment reviewed how safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led the service was. This assessment was carried out by 3 inspectors, and 1 Expert by Experience who had personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.During the assessment, we spoke with people using the service, their relatives, visiting professional and staff at different levels. We also reviewed care records, policies, audits and other documentation and observed care.

We identified areas where people were not always protected from avoidable risks. Staff were not always deployed effectively to provide appropriate supervision, particularly for people at increased risk of falls. Call-bell records did not provide reliable information to demonstrate that people’s requests for assistance were responded to promptly. Infection prevention practices were not always consistently followed, and some environmental risks required better management.

People’s needs were assessed, but care plans and risk assessments were not always accurate, consistent or detailed enough to guide staff. Some clinical care plans lacked clear guidance, including around pressure care and long-term catheters. Mental capacity assessments and best-interest records also required improvement. People had access to healthcare and nutritional support, although opportunities for meaningful activity and stimulation were not always sufficient.

The provider had audits, monitoring systems and management checks in place. However, these had not identified several of the concerns we found, including those relating to care records, staffing and supervision, call bell responses, infection prevention, monitoring records, the environment and complaints. Learning from incidents and monitoring did not always lead to clear and sustained improvements.

People and relatives were generally positive about the staff and the care they received. Staff were kind and respectful, knew people well and understood their individual preferences. People were supported to make choices and maintain their independence. Staff worked with health and social care professionals to support people’s healthcare needs, and medicines were generally managed safely. Staff were recruited safely and received induction, training and ongoing support.

The provider was open and transparent throughout the assessment and responded positively to our feedback. They took action to address a number of concerns during and following the assessment, including reviewing staffing arrangements and increasing staffing levels.

We identified a breach of regulation in relation to good governance. This service has been rated Requires Improvement overall. We have asked the provider to submit an action plan in response to the concerns identified during this assessment.

Updated 31 July 2026

People and relatives were generally positive about the care and support provided. People told us they felt safe, and relatives generally felt their family members were well cared for. Staff were described as kind, caring and respectful, and relatives felt staff knew their family members and understood their individual needs and preferences. One relative told us, “(Relative) loves the staff, some are really exceptional, (relative) points out carers to me and says, ‘that one is really good’, so (relative) knows them.”

People generally felt able to make choices about their daily lives and how they received their care. One person told us, “I can do what I want when.”Relatives also gave positive examples of staff adapting their approach to people living with dementia and respecting people’s individual routines and preferences. People and relatives were generally positive about access to healthcare. They told us staff contacted GPs and other professionals when needed and kept families informed about changes in people’s health.There were positive examples of people’s health improving with appropriate support. One relative told us, “Here they make sure (relative) eats and drinks and (relative) is so much better.”

However, people’s experiences were not always consistent. Some people described limited opportunities for meaningful activity and interaction. One person described the environment as “boring” and said the music being played was “not their sort of music.” Some relatives also felt activities and opportunities for stimulation had reduced.

Feedback about food was mixed. While some people and relatives were happy with the meals, others raised concerns about quality, choice and whether individual preferences were always followed.Most people and relatives felt able to approach staff and managers with concerns. However, some relatives felt concerns they had raised did not always lead to change. One relative told us, “I do go and speak to people straight away if I have concerns, but nothing happens.”Overall, people and relatives valued individual staff and generally felt people were treated with kindness and respect, although their experiences of activities, food and how concerns were responded to were more mixed.