Ashton Manor Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect

This service scored 65 (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 treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People said they were happy living in the service. Comments received included, “I am happy with the staff”, “I am happy with the carers”, “It’s very good here. I join in everything. All the carers are wonderful and very kind”, “The staff are way above anything I have experienced before. They are extremely well-trained intelligent individuals. Nothing is too much trouble” and “They’re the best.”

Relatives gave equally positive feedback telling us, “Overall, [person] is very happy here. The staff are helpful and they are kind”, “Staff are exceptional and make us feel at home. They couldn’t be better”, “It’s lovely here”, “I’ve been consistently impressed by the care, good humour and professionalism shown by the team” and “The staff are so caring and friendly and so respectful to all the residents who are shown great dignity.”

We observed kind interactions between staff and people. This included a staff member supporting 1 person to have their drink. The staff member was being very kind, gentle and chatting to the person throughout.

Links with external agencies were also positive with a healthcare professional telling us, “It’s (the service) quite dated when you first walk in. It puts you on the back foot as you get a certain perception. But the care is really good and there’s a nice atmosphere.”

The provider did not treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

We observed that everyone at the service was provided with a two-handled or spouted plastic beaker for their drinks, many of which were badly stained. As well as being undignified, not everyone may require this type of support which showed staff were not considering people as individuals as some people may be able to drink independently from a regular cup or glass. We spoke with the registered manager about this who told us, “Not everyone should have a plastic beaker.” Following our visit, the registered manager sent evidence of assessing people’s individual needs in relation to their drinking vessel and told us, “The kitchen staff has been asked to carry forward the schedule for destaining of the beakers and frequency will be reviewed at kitchen meeting planned for 20/4/26.”

Relatives did not always feel people were treated as an individual. One family member told us, “We’ve brought in CDs and DVDs, but staff never put them on for her. They are covered in dust in their room.”

Care plans were not always personalised or person-centred. Some of the information was generic and repeated in care plans. For example, the ‘maintaining a safe environment’ care plan. Where people had a dementia care plan in place, it did not always state what type of dementia the person had and what it meant directly to them. Instead, the care plan listed general information which people living with dementia may have. A staff member said, “Most people have dementia. I know different types of dementia but I don’t know who has what type of dementia.”

People’s medical conditions were not always expanded on to explain how they may affect the person. For example, one person had cataracts and glaucoma but there was no further detail on what support may be needed in this respect. Falls care plans stated, “provide [person] with their mobility aids”, but did not always say what the person used. One person’s care plan stated staff should ensure they were aware of the person’s religious needs, but did not say what these were.

We raised our findings with the registered manager during our visit who took immediate action to address these shortfalls.

We did receive positive comments however from relatives and staff in relation to individualisation. A relative said, “Staff are very patient with him and are very kind to him. He can’t join in very many activities, but the carers hold his hands and wave them around to dance with him.” A staff member told us, “It’s rewarding to see how the little things, like taking time to chat or helping with a favourite activity, can brighten someone’s day.”

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were not always being supported to make their own choices. For example, everyone being given plastic beakers rather than choosing what they wished to drink from.

At lunchtime options were limited and specific dietary needs were not always met. For example, people who required a gluten-free diet were offered no alternative to the battered onion rings that were given as appetisers. One person, who did not eat meat, was served sausage casserole (according to their food records) on 1 occasion and received fish, despite it being their preference, a limited number of times during the month of March.

The television was on in the lounge throughout our visit. We did not hear staff ask people what they would like to watch and a relative confirmed this commenting, “It is always on the same channel.”

Yet, despite our observations staff respected people’s wishes. We spoke with people whose choice it was to stay in their room with 1 person telling us, “I like to stay in my room by choice” and another saying, “I have been given assistance in setting up my room to my likes.” A relative also told us, “Sometimes he is eccentrically dressed – that’s enabling him to choose.”We also found people were able to spend time doing things they liked and they had access to activities.

Staff too, felt they gave choices with 1 telling us, “I love seeing residents make choices about their day. We always try to give them options and respect what they want.”

The provider listened to and understood people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People felt their needs were responded to in a timely manner. One person said, “I have a call bell and someone comes quite quickly when I press it.” Another told us, “I used the call bell last night and they came quite quickly.”

Relatives also felt their family member’s needs were responded to. “A relative told us, “Mum is always clean and well dressed. Visiting times are flexible with no restriction to how long we stay which we are so grateful for. We can also take mum out which not all homes accommodate. This does us all good to enjoy time out together.”

We observed a staff group who knew people well and they had good relationships with people. A staff member told us, “We know the residents really well so we can spot even the small changes and act quickly. It makes a real difference.” This was reiterated by a healthcare professional who felt staff identified changes quickly and took action to respond to these.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff, and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Management looked after the workforce through team building days, social events and bonus schemes. The registered manager told us, “It comes from the top. The director is really, really good at looking after people. We have joined the Living Wage Foundation to make sure we give the true living wage; we have also joined a programme so staff have access to a GP, counsellor, financial advice and signposting to other professional support. Staff told us, “My workload is balanced and everyone helps when it’s needed. Management do a great job of delegating the right amount of work to us staff” and “If ever I have a concern I know I can go to my manager and it’ll be listened to. There’s a real sense of teamwork here.”