You are here

Archived: Ashbrook House Good

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 23 November 2015

This inspection took place on 20 July 2015 and was unannounced.

Ashbrook House provides care and support for up to six people with autistic spectrum disorder who have a learning disability. The service does not provide nursing care. There were six people using the service when we visited.

The service had a registered manager. 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 were trained in how to protect people from abuse and harm. They knew how to recognise signs of abuse and how to use the whistleblowing procedure. We found that whistleblowing had happened in practice at the service and had been dealt with appropriately.

Risk assessments were centred on the needs of the individual and included risks posed when people were out in the community. Staff followed clear guidance to reduce identified risks and protect people from harm.

Staffing arrangements meant that people received one to one care to meet their specific needs.

There were safe recruitment procedures in place. All staff were subject to a probation period and to disciplinary procedures if they did not meet the required standards of practice.

Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely and correctly. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines and maintained relevant records that were accurate.

All of the staff received regular training in mandatory subjects. Specialist training was specific to the needs of people using the service. This provided staff with the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs in an effective and individualised way.

People’s consent to care and treatment was sought in line with current legislation. All staff and management were trained in the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and were knowledgeable about the requirements of the legislation.

A flexible approach to mealtimes was used to ensure people could access suitable amounts of food and drink that met their individual preferences.

Staff supported people to attend healthcare appointments and liaised with their GP and other healthcare professionals as required.

Staff communicated effectively with people, responded to their needs promptly and treated them with kindness and compassion.

Throughout our visit we saw examples of creative care that helped make the service a place where people felt included and consulted.

People were able to spend private time in quiet areas when they chose to. People’s privacy and dignity were respected and maintained at all times.

People’s needs were comprehensively assessed and care plans gave clear guidance on how people were to be supported. Care was personalised so that each person’s support reflected their preferences.

People were at the heart of the service. People were supported to attend a range of educational and occupational activities as well as being able to develop their own independent living skills. Staff supported people to undertake a choice of leisure activities within the home and in the community. The service provided its own day care service and people had been involved in its development.

The service had an effective complaints procedure in place. Staff were responsive to people’s worries, anxieties and concerns and acted promptly to resolve them.

The service was well led with systems to check that the care of people was effective, the staffing levels sufficient, and staff appropriately trained so they had the skills to provide safe care and support.

The staff were highly committed and found innovative ways to provide people with positive care experiences.

Effective quality assurance systems were in place to obtain feedback, monitor performance and manage risks.

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 23 November 2015

This service was safe

Staff knew how to keep people safe. They could identify the signs of abuse and knew the correct procedures to follow if they thought someone was being abused.

There were risk management plans in place to promote and protect people’s safety. Staff were trained to keep people safe when people’s behaviour was challenging to others.

Staffing arrangements meant that people received one to one care to meet their specific needs.

Safe and effective recruitment procedures were followed in practice.

People were supported by staff to take their medicines safely.

Effective

Good

Updated 23 November 2015

This service was effective

Staff had the specialist knowledge and skills required to meet people’s individual needs and to promote their health and wellbeing.

Staff used a number of tools to communicate with people which enabled them to express their views about their care.

The registered manager ensured that relevant applications to the statutory authority in relation to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards office had been submitted.

Where restrictions were placed upon people, staff ensured they were enabled to continue living their life in accordance with their preferences.

People were supported to be able to eat and drink sufficient amounts to meet their needs.

People were referred to healthcare professionals promptly when needed.

Caring

Good

Updated 23 November 2015

This service was caring

Staff interacted well with people and showed them warmth, compassion and patience.

Innovative and imaginative tools were used to communicate with people.

Staff promoted people to maintain their independence.

Staff supported people to maintain regular contact with their families.

Responsive

Good

Updated 23 November 2015

This service was responsive

People’s care was personalised to reflect their wishes and what was important to them.

Care plans and risk assessments were reviewed and updated when needs changed.

People were at the heart of the service and were able to take part in a wide range of activities of their choice.

The arrangements for social activities were innovative, met people’s social needs and enhanced their sense of wellbeing.

The service sought feedback from people and their representatives about the overall quality of the care provided. These were available in a format that met the needs of people using the service.

Staff responded swiftly to people’s concerns or anxieties.

Well-led

Good

Updated 23 November 2015

This service was well led.

People were empowered to express themselves and to be involved in decision making at the service.

There was an open and positive culture which focussed on people’s individual needs.

The manager operated an ‘open door ‘policy and welcomed suggestions made from people and staff on improvements to the service delivery.

The care provision was consistently reviewed to ensure people received care that met their needs.