Ashington House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 71 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Family members were kept informed about any changes in people’s wellbeing, helping to ensure care remained effective and appropriate. Annual review meetings were facilitated, involving social workers and families where possible, to discuss people’s care needs and review the support being provided. This included discussions about arranging a holiday the person had not been able to go on for some time.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People’s nutritional needs were well maintained at the service. Care plans identified people’s nutritional needs, including dietary requirements and how they preferred to be supported with eating. A family member told us, “[My relative] physically looks a lot healthier and full of life since living there, and I’m sure the food is a contribution to that.” A healthcare professional commented, “The resident I have worked with appears to have been given a better‑balanced diet since she arrived at this service.”

A weekly menu plan was developed involving people and staff. Key workers contributed to meal choices for people who were not able to make more complex decisions. People’s likes and dislikes were taken into consideration.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

There were good team working practices within the service. One staff member told us, “We work well together, and it is everybody’s responsibility to contribute.” Regular staff meetings were held to share information and discuss matters arising, including updates on personal protective equipment practices and health and safety. These meetings supported consistent communication and helped ensure staff were aware of current guidance and expectations.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People’s health needs were identified, monitored and addressed. A family member told us, “[Staff] are always seeking medical advice, looking into new aids and things for my [relative].” A healthcare professional said, “I am always updated by the manager of any change in need, hospital appointments, and when planning holidays.” We also observed staff responding promptly and appropriately to address a change in a person’s health condition.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

People’s care plans were regularly reviewed, up to date, and included details of how individuals wished to be supported. Staff had access to information about planned appointments, such as medicines reviews with healthcare professionals. Hospital Passports were in place and included all relevant details about the support people required during their medical appointments.

The provider did not consistently follow the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA), ensuring that people’s rights around consent were supported as required.

We found that mental capacity assessments were being completed to support people in the decision‑making process. However, the provider’s systems in relation to the MCA required review. This was because we identified some instances where best‑interests decisions were not consistently recorded, including insufficient information about who had been involved in making decisions on the person’s behalf when they had been assessed as lacking capacity to make the decision.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of supporting people’s choices and decision‑making. One staff member explained, “The MCA is about how we support [people] with their capacity. We support individuals according to their capacity. We give them opportunities to do things themselves, and we only help when it is in their best interests and in the least restrictive way.” We observed staff using objects of reference and a range of appropriate communication methods to support people to make informed choices in line with their needs.

The management team understood how the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DOLS) applied to the people who used the service and had sought DOLS authorisations where required.