Ashton Court Residential Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs. At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Since our last assessment we observed improvement in this area. Staff were more focused on people and their needs rather than the task. People were supported by staff who knew them well and understood their needs and preferences. Personal information was in place to ensure staff understood people and had an insight into their life history.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity. People had access to healthcare professionals and staff ensured they followed advise.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Information was available for people throughout the home. For example, the daily menu, activity planner, and the complaints procedure. People and relatives told us the management team and staff ensured they received all the information they required. One relative said, “We feel involved in the service and in [family member’s] care. The care plan has recently been updated, and we have been involved with the process, and our views are taken into consideration.”

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result. The management team sought feedback from people and displayed the findings as a ‘you said, we did,’ display. Monthly resident meetings took place to ensure feedback was captured by people who used the service. The provider had a complaints procedure and responded to concerns appropriately. One relative said, “I have at times had a couple of complaints, but they [staff] have sorted out straight away.” Another relative said, “If we had any complaints we would speak with the manager, deputy or staff and if they could do something immediately to resolve it, they would but if not, they work on improving it and always find a resolution.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Since our last assessment the management team had devised a referral file which evidenced people had been referred to external professionals when they required their intervention. Some people were visited regularly by the district nursing team and staff told us they had a good rapport with the local GP practice.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this. Since our last assessment the environment had improved and it was much more dementia friendly, with signage to help people navigate around the home. This supported people to maintain their independence.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. End of life preferences were documented in people’s care plans. For example, 1 person’s care plan stated their preference would be to be supported at Ashton Court and did not wish to go to hospital or the hospice if this could be avoided. The management team told us they would liaise with external professionals to obtain appropriate support.