Ashdowne Care Centre

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 68 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People’s care was planned in an individualised way and regularly reviewed. Care plans detailed people’s preferences and backgrounds to enable staff to support them in a personalised way.Staff knew people well.

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.

Timely referrals had been made to external healthcare professionals to support people with their identified needs. People’s relatives told us staff had made referrals to health and social care professionals when required.

People benefited from a staff team who knew them well. This helped ensure people received continuity in their care, and changes in their health were monitored and reviewed.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

On Pinnex Moor, the menu was handwritten on a chalkboard rather than provided in a clear legible format with photos to assist with choice. People told us they could not read the chalkboard. However, on Ashdowne there were menus which provided clearer information.

Relatives told us they had not routinely been provided with information about the home before their family member moved in. This meant families and people living at the home relied on staff remembering and having the time to provide verbal information about the running of the service. For example, the range of activities, additional services, care plan reviews and the role of the different staff.

Visitors were positive about how they were kept up to date with changes to their relative’s health and well-being, which reassured them. We saw staff had a good rapport with people and their families and were open to answering questions or providing reassurance.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

Some relatives were unclear how they would make a formal complaint although they felt confident, they could raise concerns with specific staff, and these would be acted upon. The provider said they would look at reviewing how information about the home was shared.

While we inspected the service, relatives told us they were confident complaints and concerns would be addressed. They gave examples where they had gone to staff with concerns which had been resolved. For example, one relative said, “We did make a complaint…They treated it seriously…They dealt with it very, very well.” However, since the previous inspection, some families had contacted CQC because they were dissatisfied with the responses they had received.

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

Records showed appropriate and timely healthcare appointments were made for people who lived at the service. Visitors confirmed they were reassured their relative had good access to health services, and staff advocated on people’s behalf.

People were supported to maintain relationships with those who were important to them. We saw family and friends of people were welcomed by staff. Visitors told us they were able to visit whenever they wished.

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.

Staff actively listened to information from people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. For example, people living with dementia.

Care staff had completed equality and diversity training. People and their relatives did not share any concerns with us about discrimination or inequity in care and treatment outcomes.

Care plans were written in a person-centred way which reflected the individual. Staff understood the importance of supporting people without discrimination, making sure they gave people living with dementia, time to express themselves and make their wishes known.

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.

At the time of the inspection, there was nobody receiving end of life care, although there were very frail people whose pain control was being monitored. Staff completed end of life care training. There were regular checks to ensure the comfort and welfare of people who were receiving palliative care. The level of detail varied in people’s end of life care plans.