You are here

Ash Grange Nursing Home Good

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

All reports

Inspection report

Date of Inspection: 30 June 2014
Date of Publication: 21 August 2014
Inspection Report published 21 August 2014 PDF


Inspection carried out on 30 June 2014

During a routine inspection

One inspector carried out this inspection. Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, their relatives, the staff supporting them and from looking at records.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read our full report.

Is the service safe?

People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard people they supported.

People told us that they felt their rights and privacy were respected. One person said, "I love living here. We're treated as individuals and they know what we like."

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learned from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations.

Staff knew about risk management plans and discussed situations in which they had followed them. People were not put at unnecessary risk but also had access to choice and remained in control of decisions about their care and lives.

The registered manager set the staff rotas and they took people�s care needs into account when making decisions about the numbers, qualifications, skills and experience required. This helped to ensure that people�s needs were always met.

Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.

Staff records demonstrated that mandatory training was up to date and that staff were trained sufficiently to meet the needs of people who lived there. Staff were trained in caring for people with dementia and challenging behaviour. The home did not have any people living with a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation in place but staff had been trained in the correct procedures to follow if this situation changed.

Is the service effective?

People�s health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their care plans. Where people did not have the capacity to consent to care, there were procedures in place to ensure that decisions were made in the best interest of the person.

Specialist dietary needs had been identified where required. People said that their care plans were up to date and reflected their current needs. Staff told us that care plans were personalised which helped them to understand how to provide care in a way that respected the person's personality, likes and dislikes.

Is the service caring?

We spoke with people who lived in the home and spent time observing them being cared for by staff. We asked them for their opinions about the staff that supported them. Feedback from people was positive, for example, �I like everything here. The staff are so lovely, I enjoy sitting chatting to them.� And, "The staff are brilliant, I'm well looked after."

When speaking with staff it was clear that they genuinely cared for the people they supported. People using the service, their relatives and other professionals involved with the service were able to be involved in regular meetings with staff. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were taken on board and dealt with.

People�s preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and care and support had been provided in accordance with people�s wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. One person said that they had never made a complaint but knew how to do so. We found that previous complaints had been dealt with appropriately by the provider and resolved in the best interest of people who lived there.

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received care in a well-structured way.

Is the service well-led?

The service had a quality assurance system, and records showed that identified problems and opportunities to change things for the better were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.