Ashton Care Ltd

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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 and discussed as part of team meetings to identify things that had gone wrong. We saw examples of incidents that had been explored in detail that helped enhance staff learning from previous practices.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. The provider had a system in place that ensured people requiring support were comprehensively assessed beforehand. A designated member of the provider’s team had the responsibility of carrying out initial assessments to determine the level of support a person needed.

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant. They worked with key partner agencies to keep people safe and shared information in relation to people’s safety. Staff understood how to keep people safe and were clear who to report to if they had any concerns. The families we spoke to felt that staff knew their loved ones and were able to keep them safe. The provider had a clear policy for staff to follow with information about identifying abuse and who to report it to.

The registered manager told us that staff undertook routine competency tests and were asked questions to ensure their knowledge was always up to date.

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them. All aspects of people’s support were assessed which included help they received in the home and within the community. Risk assessments identified possible issues staff might face whilst working alone in a person’s own home and how they should manage the risk. Whilst risks were identified and people were kept safe, the assessments emphasised people’s need to maintain their independence.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment and facilities were safe. The provider undertook a thorough risk assessment of people’s homes to ensure both the safety of the staff and the people who lived in them. Regular audits of environments were carried out to maintain safety standards.

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. Staff received regular supervision, appraisals and ongoing support to do their jobs.

Staff told us how they got a thorough induction when they commenced employment and about the comprehensive training they received. One staff member told us, “Our training means we can help people in a positive way, ensuring their safety and their needs are always addressed in the best possible way.”

Staff were recruited in line with legislative requirements which ensured vulnerable people being supported by the provider were kept safe. The provider used their own timesheet system and regular calls to families to monitor punctuality.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They supplied their staff with the personal protective equipment they needed which was held centrally. The provider kept auditing records of their stock which ensured plentiful supplies. Staff told us of the ease of getting protective equipment whenever it was required.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs. The provider’s records in the supported living service were not on a recognised medicine’s administration system and did not include information about stock levels. This meant that staff could not keep a running tally when stocks were low and would not be able to easily detect when errors occurred. We discussed this with the provider, and they told us they would address this immediately.