• Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Ashbourne

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

Byways, Selsey, Chichester, West Sussex, PO20 0HY (01243) 604612

Provided and run by:
Tinkle Ltd

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

01 and 08 April 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection was unannounced and took place on 01 and 08 April 2015.

Ashbourne is a residential care home that can accommodate up to 18 older people. It is situated in a residential area of Selsey, a short distance from the sea in West Sussex. At the time of this inspection, there were 15 people living at the home. The registered manager told us that most people required help with moving and mobility and some people were living with dementia. Two people required full assistance with all aspects of care. Other people required encouragement and prompting and others minimal supervision.

During our inspection the registered manager was present. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission 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.

People told us that they felt safe in the home. Staff understood the importance of protecting people from harm and abuse. Staffing levels ensured that people received the support they required at the times they needed. An overall, formal dependency assessment tool for deciding staffing levels was not in place. Despite this we observed that on the day of our inspection there were sufficient staff on duty.

External entertainers visited the home at least once a week to provide activity sessions for people. The home had recently introduced a new activity of ‘Informative Talks’. This was an entertainment and reminiscence service that used digital technology with pictures, video and music to involve people and encourage mental stimulation.

The registered manager had sought people’s consent and acted on advice when she thought people’s freedom was being restricted. Best interest decision making pathways had been followed for people who did not have the capacity to consent. The registered manager had completed mental capacity assessments and made DoLS applications when required. This meant that people’s rights were protected.

Staff were sufficiently skilled and experienced to care and support people to have a good quality of life. Staff said that they felt supported by management to undertake their roles. They received an annual appraisal. However, they had not been receiving regular, formal, supervision that would support their development and allow the manager to formally monitor staff practice.

People’s nutritional, health and personal care needs were assessed, planned for and met. When recommendations were made by external healthcare professionals these were acted upon to ensure people received the care and support they required. Staff knew the needs of people and treated people with kindness and respect. People said that they were happy with the medical care and attention they received and we found that people’s health and care needs were managed effectively. Assessments and care plans were detailed and informative and could be used to monitor that people were receiving effective treatment.

People told us that they exercised a degree of choice throughout the day. For example, what time they got up, went to bed, where they ate and what help they needed. Everyone said that management and staff at the home were approachable and listened to people’s views, opinions and concerns. People said that they would speak to staff if they were worried or unhappy about anything.

Medicines were managed safely. Care records were clear and gave descriptions of people’s needs, including any potential risks and included instructions how these should be managed and met safely.

Risks to people’s safety were assessed and actions taken to reduce reoccurrence where possible. Staff were knowledgeable about the individual needs of people. Equipment was available in sufficient quantities and used where needed to ensure that people were moved safely and staff were able to describe safe moving and handling techniques.

People’s privacy and dignity was promoted. Staff understood the importance of respecting people’s rights. Staff were seen spending time with people on an informal, relaxed basis and not just when they were supporting people with tasks.

People said that the home was well-led and that management was good. A variety of tools were used to obtain and act on feedback from people. The registered manager showed a commitment to improving the service that people received and ensuring her own personal knowledge and skills were up to date. A range of quality assurance audits were completed by the manager to help ensure quality standards were maintained and legislation complied with.

15 August 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with six of the people who lived at the service and also the relatives of three people. We also spent time observing the interactions between staff and people. We found staff to be positive and friendly. Staff spent time with people engaging in activities and providing reassurance and support. We found that people's care needs were being managed safely by the service and that staff had a good understanding of their roles and responsibilities in this area.

Everyone that we spoke with told us that their care was personalised to their needs and that they were happy with the service they received. For example, one person said, "They are good, the way they speak to you and treat you. They try and accommodate everyone".

People told us that staff respected their wishes with regard to the care they wanted. They also told us they had no concerns about the infection control practices undertaken at the home and that they were happy with the standards of cleanliness there.

Everyone that we spoke with said that they felt confident that issues would be resolved if raised with management of the service. A relative told us, "When X (referring to their family member) moved in the manager told us to come and see her or the owner if we ever had concerns. I have no qualms raising issues. They make you feel like they are interested to hear what you have to say".

The evidence we gained during this inspection supported the comments made by people and their relatives.

24 September 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We spoke with three of the 12 people who were living at the service at the time of our inspection. Everyone told us that they were happy with the care and support they received. One person told us, "I'm more than satisfied. The staff are lovely". Some people were not able to verbally express their views on the service they received. We gathered evidence of people's experiences of the service by indirectly observing the care they received from staff. We also listened to how staff spoke to people. Staff acted promptly to meet peoples care needs and spoke to people in a kind and respectful way.

Evidence gathered during this inspection from peoples views, observations, discussions with staff and examination of records evidenced that the provider has taken steps to address none compliance. These included the care and welfare of people, safeguarding, recruitment practices and record keeping.

17 July 2012

During an inspection in response to concerns

We spoke with six of the people who lived at the service. They all said that in the main they were happy with the service they received. They said that they were given choices with regards to meals and activities and our evidence supports this.

One person told us, 'I drink tea, coffee and water. Staff know I don't drink squash as it makes me feel ill. It varies where I eat my meals. Staff ask each time and I make my own decision about this.'

Someone else said, 'If I did not like the meal offered I can always have something else.'

We also spoke with relatives of three people who lived at the service. They all expressed satisfaction with the care their family members received.

People told us they felt safe living at the service. We spoke with all staff who were on duty and they demonstrated understanding of safeguarding people from abuse. However, we found that recruitment practices were not robust and had the potential to place people at risk.

People told us that locks on doors did not restrict their movement and use of the garden. Whilst our evidence supports this we found that safe systems of assessment had not been followed.

21 May 2012

During a routine inspection

People told us that they were happy with the service provided by the home. They were treated with respect and their dignity was maintained.

Relatives told us that they were happy with the support their family member's received and they were involved appropriately in contributing their views about the home.

Staff felt supported by the provider and registered manager.

A healthcare professional told us that the home was welcoming and staff were polite and supportive.