Ashdowne Care Centre

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has remained Good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

People had their needs assessed before moving to the service. This covered areas such as people’s physical health and emotional care needs. Visitors explained to us how the assessment process worked and how they were encouraged to share personalised information with staff. They confirmed staff knew their relative well.

Staff told us they were provided with information about people who were moving to the service before they arrived.Care records showed people’s needs were continually assessed and changes to their care and treatment plans were made where required to ensure good outcomes.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

We saw evidence the diverse range of people’s needs had been assessed, including their communication needs, and documented in a person-centred way. Where relevant, nationally recognised clinical assessment tools such as MUST (a tool used to establish someone’s risk of malnutrition) and Waterlow (a tool used to establish a person’s risk of developing skin pressure damage) were used.

Records showed concerns about weight loss were escalated to relevant professionals. Nutritional care plans were in place and detailed people’s food and drink preferences. This information was communicated to the catering staff. When people needed staff support with eating and drinking, this was clearly recorded in their records.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff had access to people’s care and support plans to understand people’s needs and deliver their care. There was a good relationship with a local GP surgery, and the service was also supported by members of a multi-disciplinary health and social care team.Staff told us they worked well together with shift change handovers so that information was passed on to the team on duty.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Visitors said they were reassured by staff contacting health professionals to support their relative’s health needs. Staff noticed changes in people’s health and well-being and sought professional health advice. This included GPs, the tissue viability team, and the older people’s mental health team.

Staff were clear on their responsibility to record and report people’s health changes to a more senior member of staff to contact appropriate health professionals. For example, a staff member said, “If someone’s health or physical or mental health deteriorates, I would go to the nurse and then they would make an assessment about whether to call the hospital or the GP.” Advice was recorded and the staff team confirmed this was shared with them.

People and relatives told us they were happy with the standard of food and the choice. Relatives said, “He is very funny and fussy about his food. It is generally a good standard. If he doesn’t like it, they give him other options.” A staff member said, “I like to make sure the food actually tastes and looks nice. There is nothing worse than having food that does not look right, so that is my priority. We have choice for people on the menu, and we make everything from scratch…”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Visitors were reassured by the staff team’s diligence to maintain their relative’s health and well-being. One told us how their relative’s diabetes was being well-managed and reviewed, including organising a visit from a diabetes specialist to talk with their relative.

Care staff shared information which showed they were observing changes in people’s health and well-being. Relatives told us they could report changes to staff, and they were taken seriously. They also told us they felt reassured their relatives were now eating and drinking better as they received the support they needed. Senior staff worked on the floor alongside staff and offered guidance, role modelling and support when necessary.

The provider did not always protect people’s rights around consent but did respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

People said staff were kind in their approach. We saw staff involved people in decision making and taking time to listen to their responses, although some were more skilled than others at engaging with people through eye contact and reading their body language. Staff were busy but when supporting people, most took time to engage with people. For example to ask if they were comfortable or if they felt safe when being moved using equipment.

Following a completed mental capacity assessment, Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications had been made for some individuals where appropriate. However, there were 3 people who had not been assessed or appropriate referrals made. Following our feedback, these applications were submitted.