You are here

Ashgreen House Residential and Nursing Home Good

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 9 June 2018

This inspection took place on 7 and 15 March 2018 and was unannounced. At our last inspection on 1 and 7 December 2015 the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good and continued to meet the regulations and fundamental standards.

Ashgreen House Residential and Nursing Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home provides care for up to 52 older people requiring residential or nursing care. The service is provided over four floors and within five units. At the time of this inspection the home was providing care and support to 46 people.

There was no registered manager in post. The registered manager had resigned from their post prior to this inspection. 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. A new home manager had been appointed and had started work at the time of this inspection. The deputy manager was in charge of the day-to-day management of the home and was being supported by a registered manager from the provider’s other home and a regional manager.

There were sufficient numbers of staff available to support people’s; however staff felt additional staff were required on some units to promote safety. The provider had safe recruitment practices in place and had vetted staff before they were employed to work in social care. People were protected from the risk of abuse because staff were aware of their responsibility to safeguard them.

Risk to people had been assessed, identified and had appropriate management plans to prevent or reduce the risk occurring. The provider had procedures in place to protect people in the event of an emergency and had carried out regular health and safety checks including the maintenance of equipment to ensure they were safe for use. People were given their medicines as prescribed by healthcare professionals and there were safe systems in place for acquiring, storing, administering and disposing of medicines. Staff had received medicines training and their competencies had been assessed to ensure they had the knowledge and skills to manage medicines safely. People were protected from the risk of infection because staff had followed the provider’s infection control protocols. Accidents and incidents were recorded, managed and monitored regularly to prevent future occurrences.

Before people started using the service, their needs were assessed to ensure they would be met. Staff received an induction when they started work at the home and were supported in their roles through training in areas the provider considered mandatory. Staff were also supported with regular supervision and an annual appraisal of their performance. People were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts for their well-being and people’s preferences were taken into consideration and respected. People had access to healthcare services to ensure they received safe care and treatment. Where required staff had made prompt referrals to health and social care professionals to ensure appropriate support was in place for people.

Staff understood the requirement of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and acted in accordance to this legislation. People were supported in an environment that was suitable and met their needs.

People were treated with kindness and compassion and had built relationships with staff. People and their relatives were involved in making decisions concerning the care and support they received. People’s privacy and dig

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 9 June 2018

The service was safe.

There were sufficient staff available to support people; however staff felt additional staff on some units would be more appropriate.

The provider had safe recruitment practices in place to ensure that staff employed were suitable to work in social care.

The provider had a safeguarding policy and procedures in place and staff knew how to raise concerns of abuse. The provider also had a whistleblowing policy which staff had used when they had concerns.

Risks to people had been assessed, identified and had appropriate management plans in place. The provider had procedures in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies.

Where accidents and incidents occurred, lessons were learnt and improvements made to the quality of the service.

There were safe medicines practices in place and safe infection control practices to prevent the spread of infections.

Effective

Good

Updated 9 June 2018

The service was effective.

Before people moved into the home their needs were assessed to ensure they would be met.

Staff were supported through induction, training, supervision and annual appraisals to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to perform their role efficiently.

People were supported to eat and drink enough and to maintain a balanced diet.

People were supported to access healthcare services such as GP and hospitals. Staff teams made prompt referrals to health and social care professionals when required.

The premises was suitable to people's diverse needs.

The service acted in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Caring

Good

Updated 9 June 2018

The service was caring.

People were treated with kindness and compassion.

Staff were knowledgeable about people's needs with regards to their disability, race, religion, sexual orientation and gender and supported them in a caring way.

People and their relatives were involved in making decisions about their care and support.

People's privacy and dignity was respected and their independence promoted.

People and their relatives were provided with information about the home in formats that met their needs.

Responsive

Good

Updated 9 June 2018

The service was responsive.

People using the service had a care plan in place which provided staff with guidance on how their needs should be met.

People were supported with various activities; however more could be done to get people involved in activities that interest them.

The provider had a complaint policy in place which provided guidance on how to make complaints and how complaints would be handled.

Appropriate support was in place for people at the end of their life and to ensure their wishes were respected.

Well-led

Good

Updated 9 June 2018

The service was well-led.

The home did not have a registered manager in post. The registered manager had resigned from their post and a new manager had been recruited and was in the process of registering with CQC.

Staff told us they were not happy working at the home because of a management culture. However a new manager was in post and had started working with people, their relatives and the various staff teams.

People's views were sought through regular residents' meetings and an annual survey.

There were appropriate arrangements in place for monitoring the quality and safety of the service that people received.

The provider worked well in partnership with other organisations such as the local authority.