You are here

The provider of this service changed - see old profile


Inspection carried out on 18 December 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Ashley Court is a residential care home providing personal care to 34 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 38 people.

The home is set over two floors. The second floor can be accessed via a lift. There is a communal lounge and dining room on each floor.

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

Assessing risks to people required some improvement to ensure that all risks were mitigated. A safety installation was required to windows to ensure they met health and safety executive requirements.

The providers policy and procedure for recruitment had not consistently been adhered to, though all staff had a disclosure and barring service (DBS) check.

Staff had received training, regular support and supervision.

Cleaning records had not consistently been completed to evidence good infection control practice. The home appeared clean and was free from malodour. Staff had access to personal protective equipment (PPE) and we saw this used appropriately throughout the inspection.

Systems and processes to manage the safety and quality of the service had not consistently identified gaps in record keeping found during the inspection. We have made a recommendation that current systems are reviewed.

Medicines were managed, stored and administered safely.

People were protected from the risk of abuse and told us they felt safe.

There was a positive inclusive culture in the home. People and their relatives spoke highly of the staff and management team and felt included and well supported. Care was person centred and people’s individual characteristics were considered and planned into care.

The registered manager and management team were open and transparent and focussed on improving the service. They worked in partnership with other health care professionals to achieve positive outcomes for people.

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.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 4 October 2019)

Why we inspected

The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about the safety and management of the service. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to coronavirus and other infection outbreaks effectively.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Inspection carried out on 3 September 2019

During a routine inspection

Ashley Court Care Home is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to up to 38 people. At the time of inspection 31 people were using the service, many of whom had dementia care needs.

The accommodation is on two floors. Communal areas included a lounge and dining room on each floor, and quiet areas.

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

Risks to people’s safety were assessed and reviewed. However, the service provides care for people living with dementia and at times having a heightened confused state. Thickening powder, (used to thicken liquids for people with swallowing difficulties) and denture sterilising tablets were found within people’s reach. This presented risks that people may accidentally ingest them. The registered manager had these items removed immediately and provided reassurances that all such products are now stored safely away.

People at high risk of falls that spent time in their bedrooms did not have staff call bells available. We also found floor sensor mats and a walking aid were not placed within easy reach. This meant falls risks were not being appropriately managed. This also increased the risk of social isolation as people in their bedrooms had limited means of summoning staff assistance when required. Soon after the inspection the registered manager confirmed that call bells had been installed in the bedrooms. In addition, an emergency staff meeting had taken place to stress the importance of people in their bedrooms always having access to call bells, floor sensor mats and walking aids.

People received support that was caring and compassionate. Staff received induction and ongoing training and had the skills and knowledge to provide good care. People were supported to eat and drink enough, have a varied diet and a positive mealtime experience. Staff supported people to live healthy lives and access health care services when required.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control in 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.

Staff were knowledgeable about people using the service, their needs and preferences. People and staff had good relationships with each other. People, and relatives where appropriate, were involved in the planning of their care and support.

Staff respected and maintained people’s privacy and dignity. However, no privacy locks were available on the doors of communal WCs, shower/bathrooms or en-suite toilet facilities. During the inspection this was brought to the attention of the registered manager. They immediately arranged for suitable privacy locks to be fitted to these areas throughout the home.

Care plans were comprehensive and supported staff to provide personalised care. A range of activities were on offer which people were encouraged to be involved in. Complaints were dealt with promptly and there was a system in place to support this. The service will further develop their end of life conversations with people and their relatives.

The service continued to be well managed. The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service. Actions were taken, and improvements made when required.

There were positive working partnerships between the service and other health and social care agencies. Staff felt well supported by the registered manager. They were confident that issues arising would be addressed promptly.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 21 March 2017)

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we received about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning info

Inspection carried out on 16 February 2017

During a routine inspection

Ashley Court Care Home provides care for up to 38 older people, many of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 34 people living in the home. At the last inspection, in February 2015, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found that the service remained Good.

People continued to receive safe care. Staff were appropriately recruited and there were enough staff to provide care and support to people to meet their needs. People were consistently protected from the risk of harm and received their prescribed medicines safely.

The care that people received continued to be effective. Staff had access to the support, supervision, training and on going professional development that they required to work effectively in their roles. People were supported to maintain good health and nutrition.

People developed positive relationships with the staff who were caring and treated people with respect, kindness and courtesy. People had detailed personalised plans of care in place to enable staff to provide consistent care and support in line with people’s personal preferences. People knew how to raise a concern or make a complaint and the provider had implemented effective systems to manage complaints.

The service had a positive ethos and an open culture. The registered manager was a visible role model in the home. People, their relatives and other professionals told us that they had confidence in the manager’s ability to provide high quality managerial oversight and leadership to the home.

Inspection carried out on 24 February 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection took place on the 24 February 2015 and was unannounced. The service is registered to provide nursing and personal care to 38 older people with physical disability, dementia and sensory impairment. At the time of our inspection there were 37 people living there. The premises are purpose built and provide facilities for people with disability.

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our 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.

The provider had robust recruitment systems in place; which included appropriate checks on the suitability of new staff to work in the home. Staff received a thorough induction training to ensure they had the skills to fulfil their roles and responsibilities. There were enough staff available to meet their needs and there was a stable staff team.

Systems were in pace to ensure people were protected from abuse; staff had received training and were aware of their responsibilities in raising any concerns about people’s welfare. There were formal systems in place to assess people’s capacity for decision making under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

Peoples’ care was planned to ensure they received the individual support that they required to maintain their health, safety, independence, mobility and nutrition. People received support that maintained their privacy and dignity and systems were in place to ensure people received their medicines as and when they required them. People had opportunities participate in the organised activities that were taking place in the home and were able to be involved in making decisions about their care.

People had confidence in the management of the home and there were robust systems in place to assess the quality of service provided. Records were maintained in good order and demonstrated that people received the care that they needed.

Inspection carried out on 22 April 2014

During a routine inspection

During our inspection of Ashley Court care home we set out to answer our five questions; is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led? Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, speaking with people using the service, the 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 service had effective recruitment procedures but we asked the provider to note that professional references give more accountability than personal ones.

Assessments included identifying any risks to people and detailing how staff should care for people to support their safety and well-being.

Is the service effective?

People spoke highly of the service. One person living in the home said �I can�t complain� and told us that staff were helpful and available when they were needed. One relative explained the �great relief to know (their relative) is being properly cared for�

Medication was being appropriately accounted for. We identified that it was not always clear whether prescription creams should be applied regularly or as needed. The manager took immediate steps to address this.

Is the service caring?

Staff had a good knowledge of people�s needs and spoke with people in a kind and caring manner. People living in the home spoke highly of the staff.

Is the service responsive?

Assessments and care plans contained a good level of detail to make sure that staff had the appropriate information to meet people�s individual needs and preferences.

People were consulted and supported to make decisions about their care. Where people were not able to make decisions for themselves decisions were made in their best interests.

Is the service well-led?

The service has a quality assurance system. Records seen by us showed that shortfalls identified via audits and other checks had been addressed.

People who used the service and their relatives were able to give feedback on the running of the home via regular satisfaction surveys. Staff were also able to give feedback so their knowledge and experience was taken into account.

You can see our judgements on the front page of this report.

Inspection carried out on 31 July 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with five people who lived at Ashley Court, all were happy with the care they received. We saw that staff treated people with respect and gave explanations when assisting people. We saw that staff offered assistance promptly when people needed it.

We looked at the medication administration records. We saw that although staff signed for the majority medication given they did not sign for prescribed creams. This meant that it was not possible to determine whether creams were being administered as prescribed.

Staff told us they had regular supervision sessions and attended training to ensure that they had the skills and knowledge to do their jobs.

We saw that people using the service and their relatives had been able to give feedback about the service through regular satisfaction surveys. We looked at a selection of these and saw the feedback was positive.