Ashurst Park Care 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. Some shortfalls were found in people’s care plans and ensuring that each and every person living at the service received person-centred, individualised care in line with their needs. However, the registered manager was working towards making improvements to meet the principles of the RSRCRC statutory guidance.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Care plans were in place that reflected people’s physical, emotional and social needs, yet further work was needed to ensure these captured the principles of RSRCRC for people with a learning disability as one staff member was unaware of one person’s communication plan which may mean this person may not receive consistent support in making their own decisions and choices. However, the person was supported by a consistent team of 4 staff members, which helped to minimise the risk of this happening.

We also identified some additional areas where staff assigned to people were not always fully aware of their needs such as dementia and how these impacted them specifically. For example, staff were unable to tell us the type of dementia one person had and one staff member told us they had not done much training in dementia.

Care plans were regularly reviewed to ensure they continued to reflect people’s needs, and people or those acting on their behalf were actively involved in any reviews. Generally, we saw personalised details in care planning including people’s preferences around nutrition and hydration, interests and relationships that were important to them, although we did find some people’s care plans lacked information about their life history. People we spoke with were complimentary about how they or their family members were supported in line with their wishes and that adaptations were made if needed. One person stated “I am really impressed and how much difference they have made to (relative name). They have given him a life.”

The registered manager understood the diverse health and care needs of people so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People we spoke with were happy living at the service, and felt the care they received was joined up and met their needs. They were supported to celebrate events that were meaningful to them, and were enabled to spend time with families whenever they wished to do so. One person told us, “They threw a party for my relative’s care yesterday; the care is faultless. I would want to be here. They took him to a coffee shop. I can come here 24 hours a day.”

We received generally positive feedback about the range of activities, and we saw photos of weekly trips into the local community as well as plans for visits further afield during the summer period. Staff we spoke with explained that activities were designed based around people’s interests and preferences, and were also discussed at the regular residents meetings. For people who needed adjustments to be able to access the community, staff ensured that where specifically trained staff needed to accompany people to support any health needs this was facilitated. Access was supported to external health appointments and regular visits to the service, to ensure people could receive timely support when needed.

The registered manager did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in suitable formats for people.

People’s communication needs were clearly recorded in care planning documents and regularly reviewed. Although this was positive to see, we found some people with a learning disability were not being provided with communications aids to help them make decisions. Some staff told us, “We tend to ask his parents.” This approach did not align with the RSRCRC statutory guidance. More importantly, the person was not supported to express their needs and preferences, which reflects a shortfall in delivering truly person-centred care and respecting people’s rights.

However, staff and leaders recognised the diverse range of communication needs of the people they supported, and made adaptions where appropriate to ensure people received information that allowed them to be involved in their own care and make informed decisions. For one person who spoke a different language, we saw that staff had been using a variety of mechanisms to share information including using a translation app, and cue cards with commonly used phrases. Additionally some members of staff had learned this person’s language, allowing for meaningful communication that enhanced their quality of life and wellbeing.

Some people required visual information, and we saw that pictorial menus were able to allow people to make personalised nutrition and hydration choices. There were also memory frames outside of people’s rooms that were bespoke to them to help orientate them to their rooms.

The registered manager enabled people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints.

All those we spoke with stated they received regular communication from management, and were actively involved in their own care or that of their family member. One relative told us, “If I ask anything I get feedback and I can ring at any time, they are very transparent. I was asked what important information to be included in [family member’s name] care plan. I have the complaints information.”

There were regular meetings for people and their relatives to allow them to share feedback about the service, as well as monthly surveys carried out on the quality of the food. As a result of the most recent survey the menu had changed. People reported back, “The food has improved since you have changed the menu.”

We observed management were readily accessible and spent time with people, and were responsive to any questions, requests or support needs people had. People knew how to raise concerns and complaints if needed, and felt confident that these would be thoroughly reviewed and any action taken if appropriate.

People were supported by a consistent staff team, with keyworkers allocated to each person. This helped build strong relationships between staff and people so staff were better at understanding people’s wishes and needs. This helped with people who were unable to communicate verbally to have their views considered.

People could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People could access care in a way that worked for them, and that was suited to their individual choices and needs. Staff carried out regular checks on people to make sure they were happy and safe. Staff undertook training to identify and address any barriers to accessing services. The physical environment ensured that barriers to care were removed, for instance for those with a physical disability or who had dementia. One person told us, “I don’t feel like I am treated any differently to anyone else.”

Staff and leaders did not always consider those people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailor their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The majority of people’s human rights and independence were promoted by the service, although the registered manager needed to continue to improve this in relation to some people with a learning disability. This included enabling people to make their own decisions, ensuring care plans meet individual needs and goals, promoting skills and independence, supporting community participation, and avoiding unnecessary restrictions to help people lead fulfilling lives.

People’s care that was regularly reviewed, and where people were able to, they were supported to live their lives in the way that they wished to do so. Where people were at higher risk of inequalities in care due to personal circumstances, the registered manager was alert to this and made reasonable adjustments. For example, if people could not leave their room, staff ensured that they regularly spent time with them and that they were able to access activities in their room that were personalised to them. They also worked in collaboration with health professionals to maximise people’s independence, which included organising specialist equipment for one person to enable them to mobilise with less assistance from staff.

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.

The registered manager explained that the service worked with a local hospice who provided training to staff on end of life. For people who were receiving end of life care, staff would hold regular meetings with them to talk about their needs and wishes. Where families wished to stay overnight to be with family members who were at the end of life, the service was able to support them in doing so.

We observed people had been supported to have informed discussions around the future, and that these were documented clearly in their care plans. Where people needed decisions to be made on their behalf, family members were actively involved appropriately. One person told us, “The service involved me in all decisions for [family member], including in deciding that they should receive resuscitation.” Where people did not feel ready to have these conversations this was respected by the service.