Ashley Lodge Care Home

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated 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.

Staff knew people and understood their needs well. People told us staff respected their choices and preferences. People’s relatives told us staff knew people well, gave people choices and were familiar about people’s likes and dislikes. They told us the staff had asked about them the things people liked to do, so they could let people know when those activities were happening.

However, not all care plans were personalised or included enough information for staff to know how best to support people. For example, some people living at the service had difficulty with their vision, but care plans we looked at made no reference to this. In one person’s plan, there was reference made to cultural dietary needs but no information for staff on how to manage this alongside the person’s health condition. Despite this, staff were able to tell us how they supported people on a daily basis. The management team told us they would review the care plans we highlighted to address this.

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.

Staff were trained to support people. They understood people’s health needs and worked in partnership with external professionals. One health professional told us, “[Deputy and registered manager] are very responsive and are very keen to help us and work together. They also know the people they support."

People were supported by a consistent team of staff, which supported continuity of care. People’s relatives told us the staff were familiar faces each time they visited. One person’s relative said, “I’m not very good with names but I know the manager and when I visit, although sometimes there are new faces, there are also a lot that I recognise.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People’s communication needs were assessed and when people experienced difficulties with hearing or speech, their care plans were informative and clear. These plans informed staff to speak slowly and clearly. We observed this in practise and saw staff crouching down to people’s eye level when speaking to them.

People told us they were provided with information such as the activity’s planner, and we saw that menus were accessible to people on dining tables.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People’s feedback was sought through surveys and there were regular resident meetings. People’s relatives told us they were asked for feedback and were invited to regular meetings. One person’s relative said, “I haven’t attended any meetings, but they are well advertised with posters and emails, and I always get the minutes, and the outcome of any items raised.” One person’s relative told us there had been issues with the minibus, which had been raised at one of the meetings, but that was now resolved, and people were able to go on trips again. We saw the results of the latest resident’s survey which showed a high percentage of positive feedback. Some people had raised concerns about menus, and we saw the service had completed dining experience audits to seek up to date feedback with people in order to ensure people’s satisfaction.

Complaints were logged and responded to in a timely manner. People told us they knew how to raise a complaint. One person said, “I would get in touch with the nurse, and they will get in touch with people above them and it will go from there, but I’ve had no reason to complain.”

We saw the service had received a number of compliments from relatives.

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

People with protected characteristics were supported to have equitable access to services. For example, people with a disability which impacted their ability to leave the home were supported to access health services to meet their individual needs. The environment supported accessibility for people, with wide corridors fitted with handrails and adapted toilets and bathrooms. One person told us they liked to go outside regularly, and the service had moved their room downstairs so they could do this by themselves. Care plans included details of any equipment people required. We saw people had the equipment they needed and were able to move around safely.

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 received training in equity, diversity, and human rights to help them understand equality and address discrimination. In the main, people’s cultural and spiritual choices were respected.

People were not always 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.

Staff had completed end of life training and understood how to support people at the end of their lives. One staff member said, “We have to make sure we treat people with respect and engage with them. We give them proper care and make sure they’re comfortable.” Nurses told us they received support from the local palliative care team when required. Although nobody at the service was receiving end of life care at the time of the inspection, one person’s relative told us “Staff have told me that if they thought [name] was close to end of life, they would ring me so that I can be with [name].” Another person’s relative told us they had been told by staff that they could arrange for another bed to go in the person’s bedroom if they wished, so they could stay with their relative as they approached end of life. They told us this was very reassuring.

However, end of life care plans were not personalised and did not include information about people’s choices and preferences for end-of-life care. This included those people who might have specific cultural or spiritual requests. We fed this back to the management team who told us they would review this with people and their families.