Ash Grange Nursing Home

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 72 (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 worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The provider did not always make sure there were enough staff to meet people’s needs in a timely way. Some improvements were needed to systems in place to ensure there were sufficient staff available to support people. On the day of the inspection some staff absence had impacted the overall staffing numbers and despite arrangements being made to cover this it had not been effective, and some people experienced some delays. For example, there was a change in the catering team staffing levels which delayed people from receiving their meal in the dining area. Some periods of the day communal areas did not have staff accessible as there was a staff member on the care team absent. Staff had mixed views about staffing levels. Some staff said they felt more staff were needed, whilst others felt there were usually enough staff. The registered manager explained this was due to staff absence and failings in the system to provide cover. The registered manager told us they used a dependency tool to determine what levels of support people needed and agree the staffing numbers which needed to be available. We reviewed the dependency tool and staff rotas, and we found these to be accurately completed. On the day of the inspection the staffing levels had fallen short of the dependency tool levels due to unplanned absences and difficulties obtaining cover using the usual system. Staff were recruited safely and had an induction into their role. Staff had regular updates to their training and received support and supervision on a regular basis.

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 made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.