Ashlett Dale Rest Home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

For this assessment we looked only at the quality statement in relation to consent and found areas of good practice. The score for this area has been combined with scores based on the rating from the last assessment.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good: This meant people’s outcomes were mostly consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Assessing needs during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Some mental capacity assessments in care plans were generic and lacked personal details.

Records of mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions were sometimes related to general needs rather than specific decisions, for example 1 person had an overall decision recorded regarding their care, medicines, and preparation of meals. This was not in line with the principles of The Mental Capacity Act 2005. However, we also saw some records for other people that did relate to specific care decisions, such as support for going out alone.

We discussed the possible use of other tools in relation to improving this and making the information more personalised. The deputy manager informed us of improvements they were starting to make around recording Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

We observed staff sought people’s consent when providing support. Staff confirmed they received training and demonstrated understanding of consent and mental capacity issues. The registered manager obtained written evidence in relation to people’s legal representatives, such as power of attorney for health and/or finances, and this was held on file.