You are here

Archived: Ashridge Community Care Requires improvement

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 13 April 2016

Ashridge Community Care is a domiciliary care agency owned by Pentlow Community Care Ltd providing care and support to people living in their own homes in Bexhill-on-Sea and surrounding area. Although separately registered with CQC, Ashridge Community Care is a small service integrated into the day to day running of Pentlow Community Care from the same offices in Eastbourne.

The inspection took place on the 8 and 9 February 2016 and this was an announced inspection.

We informed the registered manager two days prior to our inspection to ensure that there was someone available to meet us at the office when we arrived. This also allowed the manager time to contact both clients to inform them of our inspection and seek permission for us to contact them.

Ashridge Community Care provided personal care to two people at the time of our inspection. Some people were living with illness or other long-term health related conditions, but lived reasonably independent lives and Ashridge Community provided care or support to help them maintain their independence and be able to stay living in their own homes.

Ashridge Community Care had a registered manager who was also the registered manager for Pentlow Community Care and both services were run jointly from the same offices in Eastbourne. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (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.

The manager was in day to day charge of the service, supported by a deputy manager and an administration team of care co-ordinators and care staff. Staff told us that they felt supported by the registered manager and knew that there was always someone available to support them when needed. Staff told us that the manager had made a number of positive changes.

Staff knew about people and the medicines they required. However, medicines procedures were not followed and documentation was not clear. This meant that medicines were not always administered in a safe and consistent way.

Systems were in place to assess and monitor the service however these had not identified some of the areas of concern found during the inspection. Including MAR charts, medicine procedures and documentation.

Staff told us they had a good understanding of how to support people. However we found that care information in peoples homes and support plans did not contain all the information staff needed to look after people.

All staff were committed to providing a high quality service for people in their own homes. Staff told us they liked helping people remain independently in their homes. People using the service spoke highly of the staff and the service they received.

Staff had a good understanding of the risks associated with the people they looked after. However, the risk assessments did not reflect all the identified risks and actions taken when concerns when noted were not always documented.

Staff had a good understanding of safeguarding procedures and what steps they would take if someone was at risk of abuse or harm. There were enough staff who had been safely recruited to meet the needs of people who used the service.

Staff had an understanding of MCA and the importance of consent when providing care and support in people’s homes.

Staff and people were supported by a registered manager who was committed to improving the service to ensure they were consistently providing a high quality service that met people’s needs. Feedback was gained from people this included questionnaires and reviews and a complaints procedure was in place. The registered manager told us there were no on-going complaints.

We found a breach of Regulations of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what actions we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 13 April 2016

The service was not consistently safe.

Medicines were not always administered in a safe and consistent way.

Information around people�s changing health needs and wounds was not clear to ensure they received safe care at all times.

There were a range of risk assessments in place however these did not reflect all the individual risks for people.

There was an on-going recruitment plan in place. Systems were in place to ensure safe and effective recruitment for new staff.

Staff understood what to do to protect people from the risk of abuse.

Effective

Good

Updated 13 April 2016

The service was effective.

There was an induction programme in place.

Staff received effective training and support to meet people�s needs.

Staff and management had a good understanding of MCA. People were involved in day to day decisions and consent gained before care was provided.

Caring

Good

Updated 13 April 2016

The service was caring.

People told us staff were kind and caring.

Staff knew about people�s care needs and they respected people�s privacy and dignity.

People were encouraged and given support to maintain their independence when possible.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 13 April 2016

The service was not consistently responsive.

Although care plans were in place, these had not been kept up to date.

When people�s health needs had changed actions taken by staff were not clearly documented.

Documentation in people�s homes did not tally with information held at the office.

People were made aware of how to make a complaint.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 13 April 2016

The service was not consistently well led.

Systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service provided had not identified areas of concern in relation to medicines and documentation.

Not all staff attended meetings or visited the office regularly. Recent changes with regards to how staff access and return documentation needed to be clarified.

There was a registered manager in place who was supported by a deputy manager and administration team.

The registered manager had an action plan which was in progress to continually develop and improve service provision.