Ashington House

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

An electronic system was used to monitor incidents and accidents. Records were completed appropriately, and actions were taken to maintain safety, including discussing the incident with the staff team and reviewing the person’s behavioural guidelines.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

People’s safety was monitored to ensure their care needs were met at all times. A request had been made for one person to move because the service could no longer meet their needs due to changes in their care and support requirements. The local authority had been contacted, and actions were taken to support the person while arrangements were made to identify and secure an appropriate alternative placement.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People and their relatives felt the home provided safe care. One person said, “I like it here. No issues.” A family member told us, “[My relative] is safe there.”

The safeguarding records were completed appropriately and showed incident details and dates needed for monitoring. Actions had been taken to address any safeguarding concerns raised. At the time of the inspection, there were no open safeguarding cases.

Staff were knowledgeable about safeguarding and explained that keeping people safe meant knowing how to protect them and reporting any concerns without delay. One staff member said the key principle was to “report, report, report” any concerns about abuse.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Risks to people’s safety were clearly identified and included information on actions taken to reduce and manage these risks, triggering factors, the potential impact on the person, and the level of risk. These included risks related to falls, social isolation and nutrition. Staff were provided with guidance on how to support a person with multiple care needs. They completed ABC records, documenting what happened before the incident, the behaviour displayed and the consequence. This helped staff understand triggers and respond consistently to manage behaviours safely.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure that the facilities supported the delivery of safe care.

We found the home to be spacious, and the layout appeared to meet people’s support needs.

However, the home required some general repairs. This included replacing a broken tile in the bathroom to ensure the environment remained well maintained and pleasant for people living there. Records showed that the issues had been reported to maintenance over 9 months ago; however, action was only taken by the provider once these concerns were identified during our visit.

We also noted that a large board in the kitchen was being used to store staff information and guidance. The volume of paperwork displayed made the area feel less homely. On the second day of our visit, staff had removed these papers from the board, making the environment more consistent with a domestic setting.

These findings indicate that while improvements were made promptly during the inspection, the provider had not taken timely action to ensure the environment was consistently well maintained.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

The service followed safe recruitment procedures to ensure staff were suitable and competent to work with people using the service. There was an effective programme of staff training, and evidence that this was embedded into practice, including training in positive behaviour support for people who may express behaviours that challenge. A healthcare professional told us, “The Manager and the staff have the skills and knowledge to support the people using the service. I have found them to be very accommodating and open to new ideas.” Feedback received confirmed that staffing levels were adequate to meet people’s care and support needs, and staff worked collaboratively to deliver safe, person‑centred care.

Staff received regular one‑to‑one meetings and were happy with the support they received from management. However, the appraisals reviewed did not include a review of the previous year’s objectives, which meant that staff progress against agreed goals could not be effectively monitored, and opportunities for development were missed. These points were discussed with the registered manager, who assured us that action would be taken immediately to address these shortfalls.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

The provider had policies in place to manage infection control, including procedures for clinical waste, protective clothing and hand‑washing techniques. The home appeared tidy, clean and free from unpleasant odours.

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

Medication Administration Records (MAR) were appropriately completed and signed, with clear and accurate details recorded, including the date, time, and dosage of medicines administered to people. The medicines cabinet was locked, and all items were clearly labelled. PRN protocols were available and clearly set out, although they did not include information about potential side effects. The medicines cabinet was locked, and all items were appropriately labelled. PRN protocols were available and clearly set out, although they did not include information about potential side effects. This meant that staff had not been fully informed about how to recognise and respond appropriately to possible adverse effects following administration. Immediate action was taken by the registered manager to address this shortfall.