Ashfield House - Raunds

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good.This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (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 treated people with kindness, compassion and respect and supported people to maintain their dignity.

Our observations of interactions between staff and people were caring and respectful. Staff spoke to people appropriately and supported them calmly and patiently. At lunchtime, staff assisting people with their meals sat beside them at eye level. Although there were periods of limited interaction, we did not observe any poor or disrespectful interactions.

People and relatives were generally positive about staff and described them as kind, caring and respectful. One relative told us, “[Relative] loves the staff, some are really exceptional.” Another relative described how staff remained patient and understanding when supporting their family member, who was living with dementia and could sometimes find personal care difficult.Staff spoke respectfully about people and demonstrated that they knew the people they supported well.

Overall, people were treated with kindness, compassion and respect. Feedback was generally positive, and the interactions we observed were caring and respectful.

The provider treated people as individuals and supported them in ways that reflected their needs, preferences and choices.

Staff knew people well and understood their individual needs, routines and preferences, including their food and drink choices and dietary needs.Relatives gave positive examples of staff adapting their approach to people’s individual needs. One relative described how their family member’s dementia affected their understanding of where they were and told us staff understood this and were “good with that.” This showed staff adapted their approach to the person’s experience rather than challenging them.

Staff also respected people’s choices about how and where they spent their time. For example, one person preferred to stay in their room because they liked a quieter environment. Staff understood and respected this choice. We also observed people wearing clothing of their own choosing which was appropriate for the weather.

Overall, staff knew people well and supported them in ways that reflected their individual needs and preferences. People’s choices about their daily lives were respected.

The provider promoted people’s independence and supported them to have choice and control over their day-to-day lives.

People told us they were able to make choices about how they spent their time and received their care. One person told us they were supported with showering and dressing while still making their own choices. They said, “I can do what I want when.”

Staff understood the importance of supporting people to make choices, including people living with dementia. Our observations showed people were generally able to spend their time where they chose, and staff respected their decisions.We observed positive practice where a staff member supported a person with a drink at a relaxed pace before enabling them to hold the drink themselves, promoting their independence.

During lunchtime, staff supported people patiently and at eye level. However, they did not always encourage some people to do as much as they could for themselves while eating. The provider acknowledged this and identified it as an area for improvement.

Overall, people were supported to make choices and have control over their daily lives. Staff respected people’s choices and promoted their independence, with some opportunities to further promote independence at mealtimes.

The provider did not always recognise and respond promptly to people’s immediate needs and discomfort.Staff understood how to recognise changes in people’s physical and mental health and knew when to seek support from healthcare professionals. People and relatives generally described staff as helpful and caring, and some relatives told us they were contacted promptly when there were concerns about their family member. We also observed positive examples of staff responding when people needed assistance.

Call-bell records showed repeated occasions where calls remained active for extended periods. The provider advised that the recorded duration reflected when the call was reset rather than necessarily when staff first attended. This meant the provider did not have reliable information to demonstrate that people’s requests for assistance were responded to promptly.

We also observed occasions where people’s discomfort was not recognised promptly. For example, one person appeared uncomfortable because of direct sunlight, but staff did not respond until we brought this to their attention. On another occasion, staff did not initially recognise how another person’s behaviour was affecting someone sitting nearby or check whether they wanted to move.We also observed occasions when staff were not present in communal areas, which could further delay their ability to recognise and respond to people’s immediate needs and risks. We raised this with the provider, who acknowledged the concern and agreed to review this.

Overall, staff responded appropriately to people on many occasions, and feedback about individual staff was generally positive. However, people’s requests for assistance and signs of discomfort were not always recognised and responded to promptly.

The provider supported staff wellbeing and had systems in place to support staff in their roles.

Staff were generally positive about working at the service and described good teamwork. They told us managers were approachable and supportive and that they felt able to raise concerns when needed. One staff member described management as “supportive and easy to talk to if you have any concerns.” Staff received regular supervision and had opportunities to discuss their work, development and any concerns.

The provider had initiatives to support and recognise staff, including staff suggestion schemes and recognition incentives. Staff also had access to an employee assistance programme, which provided wellbeing support, counselling and legal and financial advice.Some staff told us they could feel stretched at busy times, particularly when people required increased support. However, staff generally spoke positively about teamwork and management support.The provider reviewed staffing levels following our assessment and told us staffing levels had been increased in response to the concerns raised.

Overall, staff generally felt supported and valued, and the provider had arrangements in place to support their wellbeing and development.