Ashington House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Care plans were person centred and provided a good overview of people’s individual needs, including personal care, safety, social inclusion and what was important to them. However, there was no consistent system in place to support people to set, work towards, and monitor meaningful, individualised goals. Key worker meetings focused mainly on generic and safety‑related aspects of care and did not consistently identify measurable or achievable goals. During the inspection, the service took prompt action to address this, with a new goal‑setting and monitoring process implemented.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Systems and processes were in place to ensure continuity of care and effective monitoring. A daily diary was used to record day‑to‑day activities, including social appointments and significant events.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff understood people’s individual communication needs well and interacted with them in ways that suited their abilities. A family member told us, “[My relative] has plenty of communication books and staff have taken time to get used to my [relative’s] form of communication.” Staff explained that when people were unable to communicate verbally, they supported them through an understanding of gestures and body language. We observed staff talking with people, listening attentively, and responding appropriately.

Pictures were used to support people’s understanding, and we discussed how people could benefit further from the use of visual prompts to support activities. We saw this being implemented by the service on the second day of our visit.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

A complaints form was available in an accessible format for people who were unable to read, including the use of pictures to support understanding. A family member told us, “There have been on occasions where I have made suggestions for [my relative’s] care or things [my relative] needs of which [the service] have taken it on board and acted accordingly.”The Registered Manager demonstrated that a clear complaints procedure was in place, which outlined how concerns would be investigated and how responses would be provided to complainants, ensuring all issues raised were addressed. There had been no formal complaints received by the service in the past year.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff had access to support for emergencies outside of normal working hours. The management team operated an on‑call system and were available to be contacted at any time to provide guidance and support to staff, so that people continued to receive safe and consistent care.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The service took appropriate actions to support people with their care needs and to ensure they were not experiencing inequality. This included the registered manager explaining how they had questioned the medication prescribed following a hospital admission and acted accordingly in the person’s best interests.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

End of life wishes were discussed sensitively with people when they were ready and willing to do so. Records clearly documented whether a DNACPR (Do Not Attempt Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation) decision was in place, so staff could support people appropriately in the event of a medical emergency.