Ashdowne Care Centre

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 remained Good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 70 (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.

People and relatives gave positive feedback about the kindness of the staff group. This included the comments, “Mum speaks highly of all the staff” and the staff “here are very kind, very helpful.” Visitors also praised the role model provided by a senior staff member on Pinnex Moor, who they described as “so supportive” and reassuring. Relatives of people living with dementia particularly appreciated the tactile and compassionate approach by staff. One person said, “I have never been anywhere where the staff are so caring.” Visitors also told us their relative looked well cared for in their appearance, which was important to their dignity and reassured their family.

Records were respectfully written, and care staff spoke about people with compassion and understanding.

We received mixed feedback from relatives regarding the management of people’s clothing. For example, some gave positive feedback about their relative’s appearance and appreciated how staff recognised this was important to maintain their dignity. However, 2 visitors were unhappy as clothing was lost or their relative wearing another person’s clothes. They said this upset them and also undermined their relative’s dignity. The provider recognised the validity of this feedback and said they were looking at ways to address this issue.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Staff knew people well and as individuals. Staff anticipated people’s care and support needs and intervened early to prevent misunderstandings. Where people became agitated or distressed, staff clearly understood the best way to support the person at that time. For example, offering a hug, or an activity to do, or space such as access to the garden.

We saw how staff respected people’s individuality. Two family members said staff really recognised their sibling’s love of clothes. Staff knew the person’s self-esteem was linked to their appearance, their nails and hair style.

We saw how some people thrived on affection from staff, such as a reassuring hug, as they benefited from physical contact. People looked relaxed with staff, and generally with one another. Visitors were confident the staff grouptreated their relatives with kindness.

However, some visitors commented staff could become more task orientated when they were understaffed, which compromised people’s dignity, as staff could be more directive in their approach.

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.

Relatives told us access to the garden was crucial to some people’s well-being and their sense of independence. On the first day of our inspection, one person living on the Pinnex Moor side of the home was very restless. They tried to open various doors to go out into the secure garden but despite the good weather, staff encouraged the person to sit down, saying it was too cold outside. The person became more agitated as they were prevented from going outside. This was restrictive practice.

Following our feedback to the nominated individual, we saw practice had improved on the second day with people being supported to spend time in the garden. We saw how people visibly relaxed once outside, sitting listening to bird song, watching the leaves in the trees and enjoying the sun. The nominated individual said staff could worry about people’s risk of falls in the garden which made them reluctant for people to go outside. However, they had reminded staff of people’s rights.

We discussed how improvements to the garden layout would make it a safer place for people to use. The current design did not promote people’s independence as a path was poorly placed and narrow. This meant people tended to walk on the uneven grass where there were no handrails. There was also a lack of permanent seats which meant people were reliant on staff unstacking and cleaning plastic garden chairs so they could sit at the far end of the garden.

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.

Staff generally responded to people’s needs in the moment and acted to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. One person’s anxiety quickly accelerated due to feeling overwhelmed in a communal area.

Staff told us how they involved people in decisions around their care and gave examples. They recognised it was important to give people space and not rush them so they could focus on what they wanted to say. When people were being assessed, their preferences were recorded in their care plan, and staff interactions showed they knew people’s likes and dislikes. This helped avoid frustration from people who found communication difficult. Staff responded to changes in people’s body language, for example fidgeting in their seat, and offered them assistance to the toilet.

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

There was good communication from the leadership team with the staff group, and between care staff and their colleagues, which benefited the people living at the home. A good level of information about the individuals they cared for enabled staff to provide person-centred care. However, some kitchen staff and activities staff felt better communication between their staff groups would promote better planning to meet people’s needs.