Ash View

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

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People’s experiences of care were mixed. Several people told us there was a high use of agency staff, which impacted on their experience of care and support. Some people told us agency staff did not always communicate respectfully or engage positively with them. For example, people reported that some agency staff did not introduce themselves when entering their rooms, did not always say goodbye when leaving and did not consistently build positive relationships with people. One person told us, “Different people [come in my room]. It does unsettle me. Sometimes it really disturbs my mind. They don't come in and say hello. I have to tell them to say hello.”

Staff we spoke with also told us they had observed similar issues. However, permanent staff were able to describe how they promoted people’s dignity and privacy, including closing doors and curtains during personal care and supporting people in a respectful and person-centred manner.

The provider treated people as individuals and made sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs. They took account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

There were examples of staff going above and beyond to support people. For example, one staff member described working outside of their normal shift pattern to ensure a person received the support they needed. People were also encouraged to maintain important relationships. The provider had facilities available for relatives to stay overnight and supported people to maintain family relationships and live with their partners where appropriate.

Positive events and achievements were also recognised. Staff celebrated activities and events undertaken with people using the service, including birthday celebrations and festive events.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People were supported to maintain their independence and exercise choice and control over their daily lives. They were able to make decisions about how they spent their time, the activities they participated in and the places they wished to visit. Staff supported people to access their local community, attend activities of their choosing and pursue personal interests, including holidays, social events and community opportunities. A staff member told us: "[I] always ask them what they prefer. Whatever they want to do. If it’s possible we will make it happen."

People told us they enjoyed opportunities to socialise and participate in activities, and we observed people taking part in a breakfast club during the inspection. However, several people said planned activities within the service did not always take place due to staffing pressures, which impacted on their opportunities for meaningful engagement.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

People and staff raised concerns that some agency staff were unable to communicate effectively in English, which created barriers to communication and impacted people’s experiences of care. Some agency staff also told us they did not always have sufficient time to review care plans before supporting people. As a result, we were not assured all staff had the information required to consistently deliver personalised care in line with people's preferences and needs.

People did not always receive a timely response when requesting support. Several people told us staff could take a long time to respond to their pendant alarms. One person said, "When the pendants are going, they take ages for them to answer them." This indicated that people could experience delays in receiving assistance when needed.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff. Staff felt supported by managers and told us they were able to raise concerns. Managers described how they promoted staff wellbeing and provided support when required. One staff member said, “I feel valued,” and described receiving excellent support from managers. Staff spoke positively about the support they received during challenging personal circumstances and felt their wellbeing was important to leaders.

Whilst some staff spoke positively about support from managers, others felt the high use of agency staff had a negative impact on the culture of the service. Staff told us inconsistencies in practice, communication and familiarity with people’s needs affected teamwork, continuity of care and overall morale, resulting in a less positive working environment.