You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 16 July 2019

About the service

Ashlea Mews is a care home providing personal care to 40 people aged 65 and over. Nursing care is not provided. The service can support up to 40 people.

The home was divided into two separate units, one provided general residential care and one provided support to people who lived with dementia.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People said they were safe and there were sufficient staff although they were busy. One relative commented, “The staff are good here, although they could do with more staff and more activities.”

People received limited opportunities for activities and engagement when staff were busy.

Improvements were required to cleanliness in some areas of the home.

We have made a recommendation staffing levels are kept under review and to ensure an adequate standard of cleanliness around the building.

People enjoyed a very positive dining experience with the support of staff. Improvements were required to menus and the timings of meals.

We have made a recommendation nutritional guidance is followed to ensure people received a varied and balanced diet.

Improvements were required to manage and respond to complaints and concerns.

The environment was well-maintained and it promoted the engagement of people who lived with dementia.

People had access to health care professionals to make sure they received appropriate care and treatment. Staff followed advice given by professionals to make sure people received the care they needed.

Communication was effective to ensure staff and relatives were kept up-to-date about any changes in people's care and support needs and the running of the service.

Records provided guidance to staff to ensure people received safe, person-centred, appropriate care and support. Information was accessible to involve people in decision making about their lives.

Risk assessments were in place and they accurately identified current risks to the person as well as ways for staff to minimise or appropriately manage those risks.

Appropriate training was provided and staff were supervised and supported. Staff had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and best interest decision making, when people were unable to make decisions themselves.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible, the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

There were opportunities for people, relatives and staff to give their views about the service. The provider undertook a range of audits to check on the quality of care provided.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 30 June 2018).

Why we inspected

The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about standards of care, staffing levels, lack of activities and lack of responsiveness to complaints. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks.

We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from these concerns. Please see the Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive domains of this full report.

We have found evidence that the provider needs to make some other improvements. Please see the Safe, Effective and Responsive sections of this full report.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 16 July 2019

The service was safe.

Details are in our safe findings below.

Effective

Good

Updated 16 July 2019

The service was effective.

Details are in our effective findings below.

Caring

Good

Updated 16 July 2019

The service was caring.

Details are in our caring findings below.

Responsive

Good

Updated 16 July 2019

The service was responsive.

Details are in our responsive findings below.

Well-led

Good

Updated 16 July 2019

The service was well-led.

Details are in our well-led findings below.