• Services in your home
  • Homecare service

Ashton Care Ltd

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

3 Cundy Road, Newham, London, E16 3DJ 07537 923260

Provided and run by:
Ashton Care Ltd

All Inspections

15 March 2023

During a routine inspection

We expect health and social care providers to guarantee people with a learning disability and autistic people respect, equality, dignity, choices and independence and good access to local communities that most people take for granted. ‘Right support, right care, right culture’ is the guidance CQC follows to make assessments and judgements about services supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people and providers must have regard to it.

About the service

Ashton Care Limited is a domiciliary care service providing personal care to people who live in their own home. Not everyone who used the service received personal care. CQC only inspects where people receive personal care. This is to help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also consider any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection 24 people received personal care, 3 were children under the age of 16.

People's experience of using this service and what we found

Right support

People were supported by staff who knew them well and who promoted their independence. Staff communicated with people in ways that met their needs. People were involved in making decisions about the support they received. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

Right Care

People and relatives felt the service was safe. However, people were put at risk of harm or sustaining an injury because risks to them were not always fully assessed. People were supported by staff who told us they had not received relevant training or formal supervision. Staff promoted equality and diversity, they understood people’s cultural needs and provided culturally appropriate care. People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people’s privacy and dignity. They understood and responded to their individual needs.

Right culture

Systems to monitor the quality of the services were not robust and required improvement. The provider was keen to improve the service and receptive to make changes. The ethos, values, attitudes and behaviours of managers and staff ensured people led confident, inclusive and empowered lives. People and their relatives had opportunities to give feedback about the service and contribute their ideas for improvement. Most felt the service was good and the registered manager approachable.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 20 May 2019).

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service.

Enforcement and Recommendations

We have identified a breach in relation to governance at this inspection. We have made a recommendation in relation to staff training and supervision.

Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

8 April 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service:

’36-40 Copperfield Road’ is a domiciliary care service which provides care and support to adults and children with disabilities in their own homes. At the time of this inspection the service was providing personal care to three children.

People’s experience of using this service:

• People’s relatives told us that their family members were well cared for and treated with kindness and respect. Children were consistently supported by the same care worker.

• Care workers interacted well with family members and respected their routines. Care was planned and delivered to meet children’s needs and to provide support for their parents.

• The provider had improved systems for safeguarding children, including raising awareness of child abuse and neglect and understanding how to report suspected abuse.

• Care workers were recruited in line with safer recruitment processes. Families told us staff members arrived on time.

• Staff received suitable training and supervision to carry out their roles and the registered manager checked their competency regularly.

• Family members told us that in the past they had care workers who were less effective and caring but that there had been improvements in the past year.

• The provider obtained consent from children’s parents to provide care but had not yet explored how children may be able to make decisions when they reached adulthood.

• The registered manager had suitable systems to monitor the performance of care workers and ensure that families were happy with the quality of care.

Rating at last inspection:

At the last inspection in April 2018 this service was rated ‘requires improvement’. Breaches of regulations were found in relation to safeguarding service users from abuse and ensuring fit and proper persons were employed. Following the last inspection we asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to ensure that they were meeting these regulations.

Why we inspected:

This was a routine inspection. We carried this out to check the provider had met their action plan.

Follow up:

The service was rated ‘good’. We will continue to monitor information and intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection guidelines. We may inspect sooner if any concerning information is received.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

16 April 2018

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on 16 April 2018 and was announced. We gave the provider five days notice of the inspection visit because the registered manager told us they would be out of the office and we had to wait until their return. This was our first inspection of the service since the provider registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in April 2017.

Ashton Care Limited is registered as a domiciliary care agency. The service provides personal care to people living in their own homes in the community to older people and children. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection, two children with special educational needs and disabilities were receiving support with their personal care needs.

The service had a registered manager in post who was available on the day of the inspection. 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.

Although there was information was in place to safeguard people from abuse, the correct child protection reporting procedures were not followed to protect people from harm. Assessments of potential risks were clear and included measures to reduce the likelihood of harm.

Pre-employment checks were not completed thoroughly to ensure the suitability of the staff employed. Staff told us they had access to appropriate training to meet the needs of people who used the service.

Care plans were tailored to meet people’s individual needs. They had a good emphasis on personalised care and reviews of people’s needs were carried out regularly.

Relatives told us their family members were supported by caring staff who knew them well. Care workers supported people with personal care respectfully and with discretion.

Although staff did not support people with their medicines they had received training in safe management of their medicines. People had access to healthcare services to support then with their medical needs. People’s nutritional needs were met and their food preferences were documented in their records.

The provider sought parental consent before people received their care and support.

Parents were informed about how to raise a complaint and told us they had no concerns about the service.

There was a programme of regular audits. The provider sought people’s feedback to improve the way care was delivered. Parents and staff spoke positively about the approachable nature of the registered manager.

We found two breaches of regulation in relation to safeguarding service users from abuse and fit and proper persons employed. You can see what action we asked the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.