Ash House

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question as good. At this assessment the rating has remained as good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (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 proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

The provider did not always work well with people to understand and manage risks. Risk assessments were in place for areas including infection control, lone working, accidents and incidents, manual handling and safeguarding. TNCA described other risk management strategies in place; however, these were not always formalised into documentation and consistently applied across the service. The risk was reduced as people’s toenails were cut by consistent staff who knew people well. Prior to our assessment the provider had started to review their processes and implement a new care plan process. We were told once these were implemented, they would be reviewed to ensure they stayed accurate and up to date.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. Risks associated with the persons home were not always assessed before the service started supporting them. Home visit check lists were in place for some people, and whilst there were other risk measures in place TNCA told us about, these were not always formalised into documentation and implemented consistently across the service. Prior to our assessment the provider had started to review their processes and implement a new care plan process to improve the services risk management process. We were told once these were implemented, they would be reviewed to ensure they stayed accurate and up to date.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

The provider did not support anyone with their medicines. Therefore, no evidence was gathered in relation to this quality statement.