Ashton View Nursing Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

This is the first assessment since this provider took over ownership of the home. This key question has been rated good. This meant the service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.

This service scored 79 (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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. This was based on transparency, equity, equality and human rights, diversity and inclusion, engagement, and understanding challenges and the needs of people and their communities.

The provider’s values were listed within the staff handbook, to ensure all staff members were aware of these and what the expectations were. These included, displaying compassion in all interactions, being accountable, respecting people and diversity, exceeding expectations and working as a team. Staff understood their responsibility to provide safe and effective person-centred care to people, in line with the provider’s vision and values.

The registered and deputy manager used spot checks, supervision and meetings to make sure staff understood and were demonstrating the necessary values in their interactions with people and relatives.

The provider had inclusive leaders at all levels who understood the context in which they delivered care, treatment and support and embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders had the skills, knowledge, experience and credibility to lead effectively. They did so with integrity, openness and honesty.

The home had undergone a number of management changes over the last 12 months. The current manager, who had managed other care services previously, had commenced employment at Ashton View in June 2026 and registered with CQC in July 2026. They were supported by a deputy manager who had worked at the home for some time.

Staff spoke positively about the new manager, who they said was friendly, approachable and appeared willing to listen. Due to how new they were in the role; not all people and relatives we spoke with were aware of the new manager’s name. Some still thought the previous manager was still in place. This person still worked for the provider and visited the home regularly. However, those we spoke with all felt the home was well managed.

Overall, the provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

The provider had up to date whistleblowing / speaking up policy and procedures in place, which explained how staff could raise concerns and who to go to, if they felt concerns were not being dealt with appropriately. The staff handbook also contained information on whistleblowing; however, this required more details, as it advised staff to just discuss concerns with the company, not what they could do if they wished to escalate matters further.

Staff provided mixed opinions when asked if they would feel comfortable speaking up and if they felt they would be listened to. Comments included, “There is a good culture at the home, and I would be listened to if I raised concerns” and “I haven’t felt able before, but with the new manager, possibly.”

People and relatives told us they knew how to raise concerns and would be happy to do so. Relatives stated management were approachable, or they could contact head office, with details being available within the home.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The provider ensured the home was an inclusive environment, where staff were treated equally. The provider supported flexible working, with some staff telling us of their positive experiences, such as consideration given with managing childcare, alongside their shift pattern. Staff could apply for flexible working via an application form.

The majority of staff we spoke with, said they felt supported and enjoyed working at the home.

The provider had clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability and good governance. They used these to manage and deliver good quality, sustainable care, treatment and support. They acted on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, and shared this securely with others when appropriate.

A range of audits and quality monitoring processes had been completed to assess the quality and safety of care provided along with the environment. These included provider level audits, carried out by both the provider’s quality team and the regional manager. These helped ensure internally completed checks had been done correctly.

Daily meetings, resident of the day processes and daily walkrounds had also been used to monitor the provision of care and ensure people’s needs were being met. The resident of the day process involved a person’s full care being reviewed, including asking them for their views and opinions and addressing any issues.

Any actions generated from audits or other monitoring processes had been added to the providers electronic improvement plan, which was reviewed and updated daily.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

The home worked in partnership with a wide range of external organisations, including community groups and health professionals. We saw evidence of the latter, with care records detailing professionals’ involvement in people’s care. The local authority and their quality team worked closely with the home, with regular meetings taking place. The local authority provided CQC with a positive testimonial about the home and the work which had been done to drive improvements over the last 12 to 18 months. The provider regularly attended review meetings and quarterly forums with their allocated quality performance officer. The provider had also worked closely with the local authority on a falls reduction pilot.

The provider had a strong focus on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system. They always encouraged creative ways of delivering equality of experience, outcome and quality of life for people. They actively contributed to safe, effective practice and research.

The provider had won the award for ‘Best for Innovation in Care’ at the Care Home Awards and had been finalists in the Outstanding Smaller Care Home Group category. The provider was involved in a number of innovative practices which aimed to improve people’s experiences.

One of these was the use of a digital pain assessment tool, which used artificial intelligence, facial analysis and guided clinical observations to support the identification of pain in people who may have difficulty communicating their needs, especially those living with dementia, cognitive impairment, communication difficulties, or fluctuating ability to self-report pain. The home had employed the use of this tool, as part of a falls reduction project. The provider had identified a large number of people experiencing falls, suffered from a painful condition affecting their lower limbs, by identifying and treating this pain using the tool, the frequency of falls had reduced for 22 out of 27 people involved in the trial. The tool was now being used widely within the home, with staff routinely using this to monitor people’s comfort and wellbeing and ensure pain medication was being used appropriately.

The provider and Ashton View specifically, had also been working closely with the local authority on a ‘wellbeing sensor’ project, for people experiencing a high number of falls. Sensors had been fitted into the rooms of people experiencing most falls or most at risk of falling. The sensors monitor acoustics, respiratory rate, heart rate and body heat, allowing staff to respond before or just as people were about to mobilise. Over the course of the 3 month trial, use of the sensor had resulted in an 85% reduction in falls. The sensors had also resulted in a 50% reduction in 1:1 observations, as staff could monitor people without having to enter their room which reduces disturbances caused by physical checks.