The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Ashton Court Residential Home

Overall: Good read more about inspection ratings

62 Blyth Road, Maltby, Rotherham, South Yorkshire, S66 7LF (01709) 812464

Provided and run by:
Mauricare Limited

All Inspections

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of Assessment:1 December to 8 December 2025. Ashton Court is a care home providing support for up to 24 people. At the time of our assessment there were 18 people using the service, some people were living with dementia. We carried out an assessment looking at all the quality statements and all key questions. Our decision to inspect the service was to check improvements since our last assessment which resulted in enforcement action. At our last assessment the service was rated inadequate and was in breach of regulations regarding person centred care, safe care and treatment, safeguarding and good governance. At this assessment we found the provider had worked closely with external professionals, taken their advice on board and made significant changes to improve the service. The provider was no longer in breach of regulations, and the service has been rated good.

The management team had taken steps to improve systems. The provider could evidence lessons were learnt when things went wrong. An effective system was in place to analyse accidents and incidents and trends and patterns were identified, and where necessary improvements were made.

We carried out a tour of the home and found improvements had been made to the environment and the service was predominantly clean. Risks associated with people's care were identified and managed to keep people safe. People received their medicines as prescribed by staff who were competent in medicines administration.

People's needs were assessed and care delivered in line with them. People and relatives were involved in reviews of their care and in their care planning. People had access to healthcare professionals and staff took on board their advice and care plans were updated to reflect any changes.

We observed staff serving lunch and found the mealtime experience was good; staff were engaged with people and offered choices and support as required.Staff were kind and caring and supported people to meet their needs in a person-centred way.Care plans included people's life histories, personal preferences and outcomes.

Staff and leaders worked well together to ensure consistency of care. There was clear leadership and it was evident who the leaders were within the organisation. The senior guided staff and staff looked to the senior and other leaders for support. Everyone told us how the service had improved and was much better now than at our previous inspection.

 

 

During an assessment under our new approach

Date of assessment: 23 June to 2 July 2025. Ashton Court Residential Home is a residential care home providing care and support to older people, some of whom were living with dementia. At the time of the assessment there were 23 people living at the home. We previously assessed the service in January 2021 and it was rated requires improvement. We assessed the service due to concerns raised regarding fire safety and to check if improvements had been made since our last assessment. We looked at all key questions and all quality statements. The service had deteriorated and was rated inadequate. The provider was in breach of regulations relating to person centred care, safe care and treatment, safeguarding and good governance.

We carried out a tour of the home with the deputy manager and found people were not protected from the risk and spread of infection. The home was not well maintained, and many areas were not kept clean. Systems and processes in place did not always evidence people had received their medicines as prescribed. The environment was not always safe. The management team were in the process of responding to a recent fire safety risk assessment carried out by South Yorkshire Fire and Rescue service. At the time of our site visit the passenger lift was faulty. This had been reported and was due to be addressed the following day. Large items of furniture were not always securely fastened to walls. Risks associated with people’s care were mainly managed safely, however, some care plans did not always provide sufficient information to support people safely. Accidents and incidents were not always robustly analysed to identify trends and patterns to mitigate future risks.

People did not always receive person centred care and support. Care plans were updated and reviewed monthly but there was no evidence to show people, and their families had been involved in discussions about their care. People had access to healthcare professionals.

Staff were kind and caring when they interacted with people, however, there were times when staff were very task focused. There was a lack of regard for people’s home; for example, when the dining area was not in use for meals, it was used mainly by staff who kept their drinks and snacks there. There was also an area in the corner of the dining room which was used by senior staff to store documents.

Management systems and processes were not effective in identifying areas for improvement. During our inspection we identified concerns in relation to safe care and treatment, infection prevention and control (IPC), the care environment, person-centred care and good governance. None of these issues had been previously identified by the management team.

This service is being placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide.

In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.

 

 

8 January 2021

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service:

Ashton Court provides personal care to older people with a range of support needs, including dementia. It accommodates up to 24 people, and 14 were using the service at the time of the inspection.

People’s experience of using this service:

We identified infection control systems could be improved in the home. All the staff we spoke with confirmed they had received infection control training, however, we observed staff were not consistently using personal protective equipment (PPE) correctly. The registered manager told us that visitors were screened on arrival to manage the risks associated with the current COVID-19 pandemic, however, we had to prompt staff on our arrival for this to be undertaken.

We have made a recommendation in relation to the management of infection control.

The registered manager undertook a range of audits, although we identified these were not always effective. For example, the care plan audits had not identified some of the areas requiring improvement.

We have made a recommendation that the robustness of governance systems is improved, so that they contribute effectively to service improvement.

People gave us positive feedback about the home. One person’s relative described the home as “ten out of ten.” People receiving care appeared to be happy, and staff knew their needs well.

People were supported by staff who were deployed in sufficient numbers to meet their needs. Staff were aware of how to safeguard people from abuse and had received training about how to recognise and respond to concerns.

Medicines were managed in a safe way, with detailed record keeping and safe storage.

Rating at last inspection:

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published November 2019).

The service remains rated requires improvement. This service has been rated requires improvement for the last two consecutive inspections.

Why we inspected:

This was a planned focussed inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. As this was a focussed inspection, we reviewed the key questions of safe and well led only. Ratings from previous comprehensive inspections for those key questions were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection. The overall rating for the service has not changed.

Follow up:

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

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

12 November 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

Ashton Court is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to 16 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 24 people.

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

We completed a tour of the home and found the service required some attention in certain areas. The flooring in the toilet downstairs, sluice room and dining area were particularly worn.

Staff we spoke with raised concerns as they felt they were not always able to manage the needs of people with the number of staff allocated per shift. Medicines were not always managed safely. We looked at staff files and found the recruitment process had not always been followed.

People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse. Risks associated with people’s care were identified and managed in a safe way. Lessons were learned when things went wrong.

The provider had an audit system in place and areas such as infection control, health and safety, care plans and medicine management were checked. A corrective action plan followed if issues needed to be addressed. However, some of the issues raised during our inspection had not been previously noted as part of this system. During our inspection we noted that two incidents, one serious incident and a safeguarding issue had not been reported to CQC.

People’s needs were assessed, and care delivered in line with their preferences. Staff received training and supervision to carry out their role. People had access to healthcare professionals.

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.

People received a balanced diet and their nutritional needs were met. However, the dining experience could be improved on.

We observed staff interacting with people and found they were kind, caring and patient. Staff respected people’s privacy and ensured their dignity was upheld.

Care plans were person centred and care delivered was in line with people’s choices and preferences. An activity co-ordinator provided social stimulation. The provider had a complaints procedure and when people raised concerns they were appropriately dealt with. End of life care was discussed with people and recorded in their care planning documentation.

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 26 May 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

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.

8 May 2017

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 8 May 2017 and was unannounced. The last comprehensive inspection took place in April 2015, when the provider was meeting the regulations.

Ashton Court is a care home for older people who require personal care. It can accommodate up to 24 people. The bedrooms are situated on three floors which can be accessed by a passenger lift or stairs. There is a small car park to the rear and an enclosed garden at the front of the building.

At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post. 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.

Staff we spoke with were knowledgeable about how to safeguard people from abuse. They told us they attended training and they had learned about the different types of abuse and how to recognise and report it.

We looked at four recruitment files and found the provider had a safe and effective system in place for employing new staff.

We looked at systems in place to manage medicines and found that they were safe. Medicines were stored and administered correctly.

Care plans we looked at identified risks associated with people’s care. We saw plans were in place to instruct staff on how to minimise the risk.

We spoke with staff who said they received appropriate training which gave them the skills and confidence to carry out their responsibilities. Training included moving and handling, first aid, health and safety, fire prevention, safeguarding, and food hygiene.

Through our observations and from talking with staff and the registered manager we found the service to be meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff confirmed they had received training in this subject.

People were offered a choice of food at each meal and drinks and snacks were provided throughout the day in line with their preferences and dietary requirements. The mealtime experience was calm and relaxed.

We looked at peoples care plans and found that relevant healthcare professionals were involved in their care when required.

We observed staff supporting people and found they were respectful and caring in nature. Care plans we saw included information about people’s likes and dislikes.

We looked at care records belonging to three people and found they were informative and reflected the care and support being given.

The service employed an activity co-ordinator who was available in this role 20 hours a week. This person organised events and social stimulation for people, based on their individual preferences.

The provider had a complaints procedure and people felt able to raise concerns if they needed to. The registered manager kept a log of concerns received and addressed them effectively.

People told us the registered manager was supportive and they felt able to approach the manager and felt she listened to them and acted on what they told her.

We saw regular audits took place to check the quality of service provision. Action plans were devised to follow up any issues.

People were involved in the service and their views were sought. We saw evidence that people were involved in residents and relatives meetings and were able to comment about the service.

25 and 30 March 2015

During a routine inspection

This inspection was carried out on 25 and 30 March 2015 and was unannounced on the first day. We last inspected the service in July 2014 and found they were meeting the Regulations we looked at.

Ashton Court is a large house which has been extended to accommodate and provide care for up to 24 older people. The bedrooms are situated on three floors and there is a lift for people to use to gain access to the different floors. There is a small car park at the rear and an enclosed garden at the front of the building.

The service has a registered manager who has been registered with the Care Quality Commission since March 2013. 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.

People told us they felt safe living in Ashton Court. Everyone we spoke with told us they were confident that they could tell the staff whatever they needed to if they were worried about anything. There were procedures to follow if staff had any concerns about the safety of people they supported.

The requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 were in place to protect people who may not have the capacity to make decisions for themselves. The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) sets out what must be done to make sure that the human rights of people who may lack mental capacity to make decisions are protected, including balancing autonomy and protection in relation to consent or refusal of care or treatment.

People’s physical health was monitored as required. This included the monitoring of people’s health conditions and symptoms, so appropriate referrals to health professionals could be made.

There were sufficient staff with the right skills and competencies to meet the assessed needs of people living in the home. Staff were aware of people’s nutritional needs and made sure they supported people to have a healthy diet, with choices of a good variety of food and drink. People we spoke with told us they enjoyed the meals and there was always something on the menu they liked.

People were able to access some activities. The activity coordinator worked three days each week, but sometimes covered care shifts instead of working as the coordinator. The registered manager was addressing this issue by employing more staff.

We found the home had a friendly relaxed atmosphere which felt homely. Staff approached people in a kind and caring way which encouraged people to express how and when they needed support. Everyone we spoke with told us that they felt that the staff knew them and their likes and dislikes. One person said, “Staff are great, they know what I need help with and support me in the right way.”

Staff told us they felt supported and they could raise any concerns with the registered manager and felt that they were listened to. People told us they were aware of the complaints procedure and said staff would assist them if they needed to use it. We noted from the records that there had been four complaints received in the last 12 months which had been responded to appropriately.

There were effective systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service provided. We saw copies of reports produced by the registered manager and a representative of the provider. The reports included any actions required and these were checked each month to determine progress.

21 July 2014

During an inspection looking at part of the service

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary is based on our observations during the inspection, discussions with managers and staff. We also looked at records in relation to infection prevention and control.

If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Improvements had been made since the last inspection of the service. This meant the service was mainly safe, clean and hygienic.

Is the service well-led?

The manager had taken appropriate steps to ensure compliance in the prevention and control of infection. Audits and cleaning schedules had been developed and corrective action had been undertaken where required.

2 April 2014

During a routine inspection

At this inspection 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, discussions with five people using the service, three relatives, and the staff supporting them and looking at records.

If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

People are treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe. One person we spoke with said, 'Staff are always available to make sure we get the care we need, I would speak to the manager if I was worried about anything.'

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learn from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistleblowing and investigations. This reduces the risks to people and helps the service to continually improve.

The home had proper policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards although no applications had needed to be submitted. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made, and in how to submit one. This means that people will be safeguarded as required.

Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly therefore not putting people at unnecessary risk. Some areas required attention to improve the prevention and control of infection.

Recruitment practice is safe and thorough. The manager had recently taken action to ensure staff that was deemed unsuitable to work with vulnerable adults had been referred to the relevant bodies. Policies and procedures are in place to make sure that unsafe practice is identified and people are protected.

Is the service effective?

People's health and care needs were assessed with them, and they were involved in writing their plans of care. Specialist dietary, mobility and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required. People said that they had been involved in writing them and they reflected their current needs.

People's needs were taken into account with signage and the layout of the service enabling people to move around freely and safely.

Relatives confirmed that they were able to see people in private and that visiting times were flexible.

Is the service caring?

People were supported by kind and attentive staff. We saw that care workers showed patience and gave encouragement when supporting people. People we spoke with said, 'The staff are very good they bring me my meals to my room and ask if they can help me with anything.' Relative's we spoke with told us they thought the care was good and staff made sure they (the relative) were kept informed about the care given to their relative.

People's preferences, interests, aspirations and diverse needs had been recorded and 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 regularly. We saw that staff responded quickly to meet the needs of people. For example one person said they did not feel very well. The person was assisted back to their room and the doctor was called to visit the person within a few minutes.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. One person we spoke with said, 'If I have a problem the manager deals with it quickly.' Relatives also confirmed that they had raised concerns and the provider had listened and had taken appropriate action.

Is the service well-led?

The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. For example dieticians and speech and language therapist had been involved when assessing people's nutritional needs.

The service held meetings with relatives' and residents' to gain their views on the service. Comments from relatives confirmed they felt involved in making decisions to improve the service.

Staff told us they were clear about their roles and responsibilities. Staff had a good understanding of the ethos of the home and quality assurance processes were in place. This helped to ensure that people received a good quality service at all times.

14 October 2013

During an inspection looking at part of the service

We completed this inspection because our inspection of 24 June 2013, found that the service was not compliant with regulation 23 of the Health and Social Care Act. The provider wrote to us and told us that they would be compliant by October 2013.

We found people were cared for by staff who were supported to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

24 June 2013

During a routine inspection

At this inspection we spoke with six people who used the service, and five relatives. We found that people's privacy, dignity and independence were respected. People told us they were happy living in the home. One person said, 'I spend most of my time in my bedroom, I like my own routines and I know staff are available if I need help.'

Care and treatment was planned and delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people's safety and welfare. Staff had a good knowledge of the needs of people who used the service.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because the provider had taken reasonable steps to identify the possibility of abuse and prevent abuse from happening.

People experienced care, treatment and support that met their needs and protected their rights. Relatives said, 'I visit regularly and my mum always seems to be happy, and the staff do the best they can.'

People were cared for by sufficient staff. However, improvements were required to ensure staff were supported and trained to deliver care and treatment safely and to an appropriate standard.

The provider had systems in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received.

25 January 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with three people who used the service. They told us what it was like to live at this home and described how they were treated by staff and their involvement in making choices about their care.

We spoke with two relatives of people who used the service. They told us they were happy with the care provided. They said they were kept informed about any changes to their relatives care and treatment. Relatives knew how to raise concerns and they had confidence in the new provider and manager.

People we spoke with told us that staff were kind and always treated them with respect. One person said 'I like living here I have good friends and we spend time together.' Another person told us they enjoyed activities like sing-a-longs with staff.

There were policies and procedures in place to keep people safe and protected. Staff had received training in the protection of vulnerable adults.

There were sufficient staff to meet the needs of people who used the service. The provider had taken steps to ensure management arrangements were in place; however the registered manager was unavailable during this inspection.