Ashington Gardens

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.

Under the previous registration we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 registered manager always treated people with kindness, empathy and compassion and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff treated colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect. Staff consistently treated people with kindness and understanding. Whether inside the home, at college or in public spaces, people’s dignity was always respected. If people wanted time alone in their rooms this was accepted and people given the privacy that they wanted. All these interactions with people were conducted safely while people were being supported. A person told us, “I like it here very much, staff are nice.” Relatives all told us staff were caring and understanding with one telling us, “Staff are caring and go above and beyond what I’d expect. Bend over backwards to help.” The registered manager worked alongside several other professionals who had visited the home and understood relationships. One professional told us, “During visits I have observed the individual workers showing patience with [name] and working with strategies that work for him.”

The registered manager 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. Everyone living at the home had different support needs and different priorities and this was respected by a staff team that knew people well. A relative told us, “People there are all different, no 2 disabilities are the same and they treat people as individuals.” People were encouraged to get involved with tasks, activities and recreational pursuits around the home, but this was done respecting people’s individual preferences. Some enjoyed preparing food, other enjoyed games and all were given the opportunity to use the sensory room or simply have quiet time in their rooms. Care plans described people’s likes, dislikes and preferred routines and these were well known to the staff supporting them.

The registered manger promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. Staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible with their daily tasks and routines without compromising their safety. Some people had developed their own strict routines of daily tasks and were largely independent with staff present for guidance and safety only. Others needed some prompting and reminders about tasks for example, brushing teeth, dressing and mealtimes. Everyone living at the home would be leaving the service at a certain age and developing their independence and day to day living skills was an important aspect of living at the home. Care plans reflected people’s abilities and support needs and put the person at the centre of the plan, describing positively what they could achieve safely themselves before moving on to discuss individual support needed.

The registered manager 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 were supported 1 to 1 within the home by staff that had worked with them, individually, for a long period of time. Staff were present and responded to any situation, incident or request that people had. Staff told us they were able to tell if people were distressed, becoming anxious or were feeling unwell by the way they presented and the use of other physical signs for example, becoming quiet, withdrawn or by indicating an area where they were experiencing pain. Staff then responded immediately to any presentations as they arose. We spoke with professionals about the support provided at the home. One told us, “The staff were incredibly welcoming and took the time to understand their needs.” Another said, “The individual workers I’ve seen with (person supported), including their key worker, have presented as using a person-centred approach and attentive to their needs.”

The provider did not always promote the wellbeing of their staff. Although there were policies and processes in place to support staff wellbeing, we received mixed views from staff about how effective this was. Staff told us that sickness rates were high and this sometimes had an impact on other staff. Sickness rates were monitored and it was acknowledged by the registered manager and wider management team that this was an issue. Attempts to reduce sickness had not been successful. Another staff member told us that some staff worked long hours, often staying beyond the end of their shifts and they told us this was having an effect on sickness levels and staff wellbeing. However, others told us that they did manage to achieve a work life balance that worked for them. The provider had introduced an Employee Assistance Programme (EAP) to support staff with budgeting and finance issues. They had also introduced mental health first aid training for some staff, an initiative supported by the registered manager.