Archived: Ashcott Lawns

At the last inspection in November 2015 the service was rated Good.

At this inspection we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good :

People told us they were looked after very well at Ashcott Lawns. They said it was “a good place to be” and they “did very well” in the small, informal environment.

People told us they felt safe at the home and with the staff who supported them. They had no worries and were confident they could talk to staff if they had. They had confidence any concerns they had would be promptly addressed by the staff.

The provider had systems and processes in place to keep people safe and minimise the risk of abuse. Improvement was required to aspects of the staff recruitment practice.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to meet their needs in a relaxed manner.

The manager and staff were very pro-active in arranging for people to see health care professionals according to their individual needs. Staff noted changes in people’s health and requested GP visits when required.

People were supported by kind and caring staff. Some people had lived in the home for several years. One person said “Staff are excellent, superb. They do very well. Everything is grand.” A member of staff said “I would treat people here as I would like my grandparents treated. Treated respectfully, with their privacy respected at all times.”

People received care that was responsive to their needs and personalised to their wishes and preferences. People were able to make choices about all aspects of their day to day lives.

There were formal and informal quality assurance systems in place to monitor care and plan on-going improvements. There were audits and checks in place to monitor safety and quality of care.

The service was well run by the registered manager and assistant manager who had the skills and experience to run the home so people received high quality person-centred care. The manager led a team of staff who shared their commitment to high standards of care and clear vision of the type of home they hoped to create for people. “We want to ensure people are respected, have their dignity maintained at all times. We want a homely, friendly service where people make their own choices.”

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

Is the service safe?

People were treated with respect and dignity by the staff. People told us they felt safe. Safeguarding procedures were robust and staff understood how to safeguard the people they supported.

Systems were in place to make sure managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents, incidents, concerns and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to continually improve. The home had policies in place and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Relevant staff had been trained to understand when an application should be made and had submitted one. This meant people would be safeguarded as required.

The service was safe, clean and hygienic. Equipment was well maintained and serviced regularly.

The registered provider is also the manager and had day to day contact with the home. They set the staff rotas and took people's needs into account when making decisions about the numbers, qualifications skills and experience required. For example an additional member of care staff was on duty when a person came for day care. This helped to ensure that people's needs are met.

Recruitment practice was safe and thorough. No staff had been subject to a disciplinary action. Policies and procedures were in place to make sure that unsafe practice was identified and people were protected.

Is the service effective?

There was an advocacy service available if people needed it, this meant that when required people could access additional support. 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 compiling 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. The premises had been sensitively adapted to meet the needs of people with physical impairments.

People confirmed they were able to see their visitors in private and 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 commented, 'They are extremely supportive here although I lead my own life as much as possible.'

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

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 both inside and outside the service on a regular basis.

People knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. There had been no formal complaints however people said that they were able to raise issues 'at any time' with the manager. We saw examples of the actions taken by the manager in response to issues raised by people.

Is the service well-led?

The service was well led because the manager was responsive and accessible to people in the home. The provider was also the manager and was therefore registered with us. The service worked well with other agencies and services to make sure people received their care in a joined up way. The service had a quality assurance system which identified shortfalls and addressed them promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuingly improving.