Archived: Ashurst

Updated 22 October 2016

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 18 August 2016. The inspection was unannounced. This meant the provider was not aware the inspection was due to take place.

The inspection team consisted of an adult social care inspector.

Before the inspection, the registered provider completed a provider information return (PIR). This is a form that asks the registered provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We also reviewed the information we held about the home, in particular notifications about incidents, accidents, safeguarding matters and any deaths.

We spoke with two young people who used the service to obtain their views on the care and support they received. We also talked with the registered manager, the deputy manager, a team leader, an acting team leader and the provider’s nominated individual.

We reviewed a range of documents and records including; two care records for people who used the service and four medicine administration records. Additionally, we examined electronic staff records and training records, complaints and compliment records and accidents and incident records. We also looked at records of staff and residents’ meetings and a range of other quality audits and management records.

Updated 22 October 2016

This inspection took place on 18 August 2016 and was unannounced. This was the first inspection of the service.

Ashurst is a detached property near Marple. It provides support and therapeutic input to young people between the ages of 16 and 25. The home is registered to provide accommodation for up to four young people. Each young person had their own bedroom and access to a range of communal facilities. There is access to a substantial garden and local community facilities.

The home had a registered manager in place and our records showed he had been formally registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) since February 2015. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

Young people said they felt safe living at the home and said the staff treated them well. Staff had received training with regard safeguarding issues and demonstrated an understanding of potential abuse or vulnerability. They told us they would report any concerns to the registered manager. A range of risk assessments were in place both in relation to the environment of the home and the support offered to young people. Young people were supported in positive risk taking. Accidents and incidents were monitored and reflected upon to learn lessons for the future.

Suitable recruitment procedures and checks were in place, to ensure staff had the right skills to support young people at the home. Staff and young people told us there were sufficient staff to meet their needs. Medicines were handled safely and effectively and stored securely. The home was generally clean and tidy and young people were encouraged to be involved in the upkeep of the home.

Young people told us they were happy with the standard and range of food and drink provided at the home and were actively involved in developing menus and shopping for food.

Young people felt the staff had the right skills to support them. Staff confirmed they had access to a range of training and the registered manager maintained a small library of up to date articles for staff to refer to and conducted training sessions within the team. Staff told us, and records confirmed that regular supervision took place and there were regular reflective practice meetings to allow staff to consider their actions and roles within the home.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). DoLS are part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). These safeguards aim to make sure people are looked after in a way that does not inappropriately restrict their freedom. The registered manager told us no one at the home was subject to a DoLS. One young person was subject to an alternative restriction and this was fully monitored. All the young people had capacity to make decisions about their care.

Young people’s health and wellbeing was monitored, with regular access to general practitioners and other specialist health or social care staff. They also had access to a range of mental health professionals for support and therapeutic input.

Young people told us they were happy with the care provided and the approach of staff. We noted there were good relationships between staff and young people and that appropriate boundaries were maintained. Staff demonstrated an understanding of people’s particular needs. Young people said they were treated well and their dignity and individuality were respected.

Care plans reflected young people’s individual needs and were reviewed to support changes in their care. Activities were available for young people to participate in including; trips out, visits to musical events and also support to attend education. Young people could also spend time pursuing their own interests. The provider had dealt appropriately with formal complaints and young people told us they could speak to the registered manager if they had any concerns.

The registered manager carried out regular checks on young people’s care and the environment of the home. The provider also maintained an oversight of the quality of care provided at the home. Staff were positive about the registered manager and the positive nature of the service. They said management were approachable and supportive. Young people told us there were regular meetings at which they could express their views or make suggestions to improve their care. Records were well maintained and up to date.