Archived: Ascog House

People’s experience of using this service:

People spoke in a positive way about their experience of living in the home. They told us that staff were kind to them, they were supported to make choices and their independence promoted.

Staff respected people's privacy and dignity.

People’s care was planned with their involvement. People were included in all decisions about their care and support. The service was personalised and responsive to changes in people’s needs.

Risks to people's well-being and safety were assessed, recorded and kept up to date. Staff supported people to manage risks effectively to remain safe.

People received the support that they needed to take their medicines safely.

The provider recruited staff safely to ensure they were suitable for their role.

The registered manager and other management provided staff with the support, training and guidance they needed to carry out their roles and responsibilities.

People knew how to make a complaint and were confident that management would take appropriate action to resolve any complaints or concerns that they raised.

Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality and delivery of care to people. Development and improvements to the service were made when needed.

Rating at last inspection: Good. The last inspection report was published on 9 May 2016.

Why we inspected: This was a planned comprehensive inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive.

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

Ascog House is registered to provide accommodation and personal care for five adults. The home provides care and support for people who have mental health needs. The home is owned and managed by Randall Care Homes Limited who provides a similar service in four other care homes in North West London. On the day of our visit there were two people living in the home. Public transport and a range of shops are located within walking distance.

People were treated with respect and staff engaged with people in a friendly and courteous manner. Throughout our visit we observed caring and supportive relationships between staff and people using the service. People told us they were satisfied with the service they received. They told us staff were kind and respected their privacy and dignity.

There were procedures for safeguarding people. Staff knew how to safeguard the people they supported and cared for. Arrangements were in place to make sure sufficient numbers of skilled staff were deployed at all times. People’s individual needs and risks were identified and managed as part of their plan of care and support to minimise the likelihood of harm.

Care plans were personalised and reflected people’s current needs. They contained the information staff needed to provide people with the care and support they wanted and required. People were supported to choose and take part in activities of their choice.

People were encouraged and supported to make decisions for themselves whenever possible and their independence was maintained and promoted. People were provided with the support they needed to maintain links with their family and friends.

People were supported to maintain good health. They had access to appropriate healthcare services that monitored their health and provided people with appropriate support, treatment and specialist advice when needed. People chose what they wanted to eat and generally cooked their own meals.

Staff were appropriately recruited, trained and supported to provide people with individualised care and support. Staff told us they enjoyed working in the home and received the support and training they needed to carry out their roles and responsibilities.

Staff understood the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). They knew about the systems in place for making decisions in people’s best interest when they were unable to make one or more decisions about their care and/or other aspects of their lives.

People had opportunities to feedback about the service. There were systems in place to regularly assess, monitor and improve the quality of the services provided for people.

We spoke with one of the two people who used the service, a support worker and the general manager of the organisation.

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with a person who used the service, staff supporting them and from looking at records.

The detailed evidence supporting our summary can be read in our full report.

Is the service safe?

The person who used the service that we spoke with told us that they felt safe and their rights and dignity were respected. In general safeguarding procedures were robust. Staff understood their role in safeguarding people whom they supported. The safeguarding policy had not been updated to reflect some recent changes.

Systems were in place to ensure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduces the risks to people and helps the service to continually improve. The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty safeguards although there have been no applications that have needed to be submitted. Staff understood when an application should be made and in how to submit one. This means that people were being safeguarded as required.

People's care and support needs were taken into account when senior staff made decisions about the numbers, qualifications, skills and experience of staff required. There were systems in place so staff and people who used the service could contact management staff for advice and support day or night.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in the writing and review of their care plans. The person we spoke with told us that they had a copy of their care plan that included up to date information about the individual support and care they needed.

Records showed that people had received visitors. A person who used the service confirmed that they could see visitors and health and social care professionals in private.

Is the service caring?

A person who used the service told us that they received the support and care that they needed and wanted. The person spoke very highly about the staff that supported them. They told us that they were supported to make decisions about their lives, which included how they wanted to spend their time and what they wanted to eat.

We saw that staff interacted with people in a respectful manner. A person who used the service told us that they felt that staff understood their needs and were competent. They commented 'I like all the staff they are very good.'

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded. Care plans showed that care and support had been provided in accordance with people's wishes.

Is the service responsive?

People completed a range of activities in and outside the service. People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. A person who used the service told us that staff were approachable and listened to them. They commented 'I can contact management staff at any time about anything I want and they always provide the support that I need.'

People who used the service completed an annual satisfaction survey. Where shortfalls were raised these were addressed.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care and support in a joined up way. People's health, safety and welfare were protected as they received the advice and treatment that they needed from a range of health and social care professionals.

Staff told us that they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. They had a good understanding of the whistleblowing policy and would report any concerns to the registered manager or other management staff. Staff and resident's meetings took place regularly so people's views about the service were taken into account.

The service had systems in place to identify, assess and manage risks relating to health, welfare and safety of people who used the service.

People who used the service told us that they were supported to make decisions about their lives, which included how they wanted to spend their time, and what they wanted to eat.

Each person who used the service had a plan of care that included up to date information about the individual support and care that they needed. People told us that they were fully involved in the development and review of their care plan. People's health, safety and welfare were protected as they received the advice and treatment that they needed from a range of health and social care professionals.

Staff and people who used the service told us that there were enough skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. Appropriate systems were in place to manage people's medication.

Records were accurate and stored securely.

During the process of registering with us there was no evidence of non-compliance or of any concerns. We also found that during the planning of the inspection and from talking to the manager there was no evidence of non-compliance.