Ashington House

Ratings

• Overall

  Good

• Safe

  Good

• Effective

  Good

• Caring

  Good

• Responsive

  Good

• Well-led

  Good

Our view of the service

Date of Assessment: 17 March to 20 April 2026. The service is a residential care home providing support to Autistic people and people with a learning disability. At the time of our assessment there were 5 people using the service.

We assessed the service against ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ guidance to make judgements about whether the provider guaranteed people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted.

The service responded promptly to areas requiring change. Our findings were welcomed, and immediate action was taken during the inspection to address identified shortfalls. This included improvements to the way people were supported to set individualised goals, mental capacity assessments, enhancements to staff support, and actions to improve the care environment. These actions showed the provider’s commitment to learning from feedback and making timely improvements to deliver safe, person‑centred care.

Systems were in place to protect people from harm, including effective safeguarding practices, risk management and infection prevention measures. Care and support were delivered in line with good practice, with staff working well with healthcare professionals to meet people’s health, wellbeing and nutritional needs. The service was responsive to people’s needs and supported independence, social inclusion and access to activities.

The service was generally well led, with effective governance and management oversight to deliver good‑quality care. The governance system needed to also include Mental Capacity Assessment monitoring. Staff reported feeling listened to and well supported by the management team.

People's experience of this service

People and their family members were positive about the care being provided, which they described as safe, well supported and delivered in a person‑centred way. A family member told us, “My [relative] is happy with the service, and [my relative] is looking a lot healthier and better since moving there.” Staff were kind, caring and respectful, and people’s privacy, dignity and preferences were consistently upheld. People were involved in decisions about their care and felt listened to, with staff taking time to communicate in ways that suited their individual needs. A range of activities was available to support people’s wellbeing, interests and independence, and people were encouraged to maintain relationships with family and friends. Where people were unable to fully express their views, observations showed positive interactions with staff, and people appeared comfortable and engaged within the service.