Archived: Ashbury - Bognor Regis

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.

We were assisted throughout the inspection by the deputy manager who told us they would be applying for the registered manager’s position in the near future. The current registered manager stayed on site to offer support but allowed the deputy manager to gain experience of the inspection process.

People told us they felt safe with staff. There were policies and procedures regarding the safeguarding of adults. Risks to people had been identified and assessed appropriately. There were sufficient numbers of staff to support people and safe recruitment practices were followed. Medicines were managed safely.

Staff had received training to meet people’s needs and staff were supported to undertake additional qualifications. Staff training was up-to-date and staff told us the training provided was good. Regular staff meetings were held and an effective handover took place between each shift.

The CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. We found the registered manager understood when an application should be made and how to submit one. We found the provider to be meeting the requirements of DoLS. The registered manager and staff were guided by the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) regarding best interests decisions should anyone be deemed to lack capacity.

People were supported to have sufficient to eat and drink and to maintain a healthy diet. They had access to healthcare professionals. People’s rooms were decorated in line with their personal preferences.

People and staff got on well and there was a calm and relaxed atmosphere in the home. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and personal care was delivered in private.

Care plans were person-centred and informed staff of the support people needed. People’s preferences and likes and dislikes were documented so that staff knew how people wished to be supported. Some people went out into the community independently while others required staff support. There were a variety of activities and outings on offer which people could choose to do. Complaints were dealt with in line with the provider’s policy.

People could express their views and discuss any issues or concerns with their keyworker, who co-ordinated all aspects of their care. There were policies and procedures in place regarding quality assurance and regular audits measured the quality of the care provided.

We also used this inspection to answer our five key questions; is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led?

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what we observed, the records we looked at and what people who used the service and the staff told us.

Is the service safe?

Individualised care plans detailed the support and care each person required. People confirmed they received the support and care they needed and liked. The service ensured relevant health care professionals were contacted when needed.

The provider and staff understood their responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). Guidance was readily available to support the manager and staff team. We saw that each person's capacity had been thoroughly assessed and checklists had been completed to identify whether practices restricted people's liberty. This meant that people were safeguarded as required.

People were protected against the risks associated with medicines because the provider had appropriate arrangements in place to manage medicines. We saw the service completed a weekly and monthly audit whereby they checked the stock levels and expiry dates of the medication on site.

Is the service effective?

We observed people being offered choices as to when they received support with their personal care and what they wanted to eat for lunch. Staff were observed to support people in a calm and respectful manner. People told us they were involved in decisions about how they were looked after and had choices about how they wished to spend their day.

People told us they were satisfied with the care and support they received. They said staff gave them the help they needed with things like personal care and going out. One person said, "The best thing about being here is that we are all encouraged to make decisions for ourselves and be as independent as possible".

Staff were knowledgeable about people's personal, behavioural, social and health needs.

Is the service caring?

People living at Ashbury - Bognor Regis were very positive about the staff and management.

We saw that people were supported by staff who were kind and attentive. Staff showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. They were aware of people's needs and the preferences of people they cared for in how people wanted care to be delivered.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that care plans were reviewed monthly and amended as needs changed.

Records showed that people who used the service were encouraged to be active and be part of the local community. People were able to engage in a wide range of activities.

People said that they had no complaints about the service and that if they did they would speak to the staff or the manager.

Is the service well led?

The service was well managed and there were clear lines of leadership in place, meaning the service was organised and communication was effective.

Annual surveys were sent out to stakeholders including, professionals, staff, people who used the service and their families.

All staff received supervision once every two months and annual appraisals. Staff performance issues were discussed and training needs were identified.

Some people who received a service were unable to tell us about the support they received due to the nature of their disabilities. We gathered evidence of people's experiences of the service by observing how people were supported by staff and looking at records. We found that people's care needs were being managed safely by the service and that staff had a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities in this area.

People's rights with regard to consent were being promoted by the service and staff understood how people's capacity should be considered.

Everyone that we spoke with told us that they could approach the staff and management if they were unhappy or had issues to discuss. They also told us that they were happy with the environment that they lived in.

The evidence we gathered during this inspected supported the comments made by people.