- Homecare service
Ash View
Assessment report published 26 October 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Ash view operates an extra care model which promoted independence and choice. People lived in self-contained flats and were able to independently manage access to their homes. At the time of our inspection, there were 48 people living at Ash View. The assessment started on 3 September and concluded on the 21 September. We found a breach of regulation relating 17, good governance.
The high use of agency staff was a recurring theme throughout the inspection. People, relatives and permanent staff raised concerns about inconsistency in care delivery, communication difficulties and a lack of familiarity with people’s individual needs and preferences. Some people told us agency staff did not always communicate respectfully, introduce themselves appropriately or provide the same quality of support as permanent staff. These concerns impacted people’s experiences of care and continuity of support.
Care planning and risk assessment processes were established, and there was evidence of partnership working with healthcare professionals and other agencies to support people’s health and wellbeing. However, records were not always consistent, complete or sufficiently detailed. Important information regarding people’s routines, communication needs and support preferences was not always clearly documented or accessible, and some care records did not fully reflect care provided in practice.
The provider’s governance and oversight arrangements were not consistently effective. We identified concerns across several areas including medicines management, safeguarding oversight, training compliance, care records, handovers, infection prevention and control, call monitoring and monitoring of agency staff. Whilst audits and monitoring systems were in place, they had not consistently identified or addressed recurring issues, resulting in repeated concerns and limited evidence of sustained improvement.
Staff generally described managers as approachable and supportive, particularly regarding staff wellbeing. However, governance systems were not sufficiently robust to provide assurance that risks were consistently identified, monitored and addressed. Overall, whilst there was evidence of caring practice and positive outcomes for some people, improvements were required to strengthen leadership oversight, consistency of care, record keeping, workforce management and quality assurance systems to ensure people consistently received safe, effective, responsive and person-centred care.
People's experience of this service
People’s experiences of the service were mixed. Many people told us they liked living at Ash View and valued the support they received from permanent staff. People spoke positively about staff who knew them well. There were examples of people being supported to manage their own medicines, maintain relationships with family and friends, access their local community and pursue activities that were important to them.
Several people expressed concerns about the high use of agency staff and the impact this had on their experience of care. People told us unfamiliar staff could be unsettling and some felt agency staff did not always introduce themselves or engage with them positively. People told us some staff “speak down” to them, and others reported that agency staff were not always easy to understand. One person said, “A lot of agency staff. When they come, I get startled.” Another person said, “They don’t even say hello. They are meant to wear name tags but they don’t wear name tags.” People said continuity of care was important to them, and they preferred being supported by familiar staff who knew their needs and preferences.
Systems were in place to enable people to contact onsite staff when required, including an office call function which could be used in emergencies. However, people told us staff could take a long time to respond when they activated their emergency call systems. This was of particular concern for people with health conditions who may require urgent assistance. In addition, some people reported occasions where care calls had been missed or delayed.
People described regular staff as caring, respectful and committed to supporting them. Relatives and staff also provided examples of positive outcomes, including people maintaining their independence, accessing healthcare services and receiving support tailored to their individual needs. The service promoted relationships and community involvement, and people were supported to maintain contact with those important to them.
Several people told us they had shared their concerns with management but did not always feel their feedback resulted in improvements. Whilst there was evidence that managers acted on some issues, people did not consistently feel listened to or involved in shaping the service. One person told us, “New staff don't know what they're doing. Loads of staff have left, said there's no point in telling the office as nothing gets done.”
Relatives told us communication with the service could be improved, particularly following incidents and changes in people's health. Some relatives said they were not always informed promptly about significant events, such as emergency healthcare interventions, and did not consistently receive follow-up communication from managers. Relatives also raised concerns about communication barriers and felt greater communication between senior leaders, staff and families would improve their experience of the service.