Ashton Manor Nursing Home

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 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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Although staff appeared to know people well, care documentation was not always comprehensive in its information and guidance. We had been told 1 person experienced psychosis but this was not mentioned in their care plan despite it stating they were prescribed an anti-psychotic medication. Additionally, their behavioural support plan noted that this person could become agitated or anxious but there was a lack of detail on potential triggers or specific personalised intervention. This meant it may be harder for staff to support this person consistently and effectively. Another person was living with type 2 diabetes and although their care plan noted their blood sugar levels and medication should be monitored to minimise the risk of low or high blood sugar levels, it did not provide clear information regarding the specific symptoms for staff to look out for. A second person had recorded, ‘likes meals variable’ without any explanation as to what ‘variable’ meant. Another example involved a person at risk of constipation. Although this was recorded, there was no clear guidance on when care staff should alert clinical staff to take action, such as administering medication, if the person had not opened their bowels.

Notwithstanding these examples, relatives felt their family member received person-centred care. They told us, “It’s hard for staff to look after [family member] because he’s difficult, but they do an amazing job” and “[Family member] is always confused and sometime(s) angry and stubborn yet even when he is refusing to shower or change, he is met with patience and tenderness.” This view was supported by external professionals with a health professional telling us, “The thing I like is they have good continuity of staff. They have a low turnover of staff and the health care assistants know people really well. Continuity is good for people, particularly when people living here predominantly have dementia.”

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.

Staff encouraged people to go out and to participate in different types of pastimes or activities that had a particular interest to them. This helped people feel socially connected to the local area. The registered manager told us, “We have a minibus for trips and we have the church next door which some people go to. We really encourage people to go out with families to. We have to advocate for the elderly as sometimes they do get sidelined.”

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

Information was provided to people and their relatives through newsletters and the activity planner. Each were sent out regularly or displayed in the service. The registered manager told us, “On Tuesday we had a cake sale for a national charity. We had included details in the newsletter and we were not sure how many relatives would turn up, but we had a full dining room.” She went on to say, “At present, we don’t have anyone living here who requires information in a different format. We did have someone who used to read braille and we used to purchase products from the service for the blind and another person who we used to write everything down for them. We do, however, have pictures available should anyone need them.”

Relatives felt communication was good, with 1 relative saying, “[Person] was hospitalised after a fall and they called me straight away to let me know.”

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.

People and relatives could share suggestions, ideas, or concerns through regular meetings and additionally there was a formal complaints policy if anyone wished to raise a complaint. As a result of feedback from a recent relatives’ meeting about the hairdressing space, a new, improved salon was developed in a more suitable area of the building.

Relatives were involved in the running of the service and staff encouraged feedback. A relative told us, “I try to help with the activities. I only do the quizzes. I support the activities volunteer.” A staff member told us, “We have regular team meetings to talk about residents needs and update care plans. Everyone’s input matters.”

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

Staff ensured people had access to treatment when they needed it. The registered manager told us, “We had a recent issues when 1 person had several appointments and each time (hospital) transport was arranged but for one reason or another, they could not take the person. This meant them having to rebook their appointments. We have spoken to the (hospital) transport team ourselves as the whole situation has been very frustrating. We’ve decided however, that this time, we will also have our minibus on standby to take them to their appointment or bring them back in order to make sure they do not miss another one (appointment).”

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 provider understood their responsibilities around equality and human rights. This included preventing discrimination, recognising people’s different needs and backgrounds, and making changes where needed so everyone had a fair and equal experience.

Resident and relatives surveys were conducted six-monthly to help ensure everyone had equal opportunity to give their views and feedback. The service also tried to tailor activities to help ensure everyone had the same opportunity to spend time doing things they enjoyed. This included supporting people to the local church for services, or to the local dementia café. Outings were arranged to the shops, garden centres as well as further afield. One person said, “I like to take part in all activities. I join quizzes too. They arrange outings to the garden centre and took some of us to the beach last year.”

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.

Information about people’s end of life wishes were contained in their care plans. This included whether people wished to be resuscitated in a medical emergency and how they may like to spend their last days. People’s care plans also stated where people or their relatives did not wish to discuss this.