Ashness Lodge

Ashness Lodge is a residential care home providing personal care to up to 5 people. The service provides support to adults with mental health needs. At the time of our inspection there were 4 people using the service. The service is provided from 1 building over 2 floors.

People’s experience of the service and what we found:

People told us they felt safe living at the home. Medicines was managed safely. Staff were recruited in a safe way, which meant people could be assured that staff had been vetted before starting in their role. Staff understood how to prevent the spread of infections. Care plans outlined people's needs and risks of harm were mitigated as much as possible. Staff understood how to protect people from abuse as there was a clear safeguarding process in place.

Managers and leaders were well equipped to manage the home. There was clear oversight from senior leadership. Governance processes were effective and robust, and concerns could be picked up and addressed without delay. Staff told us they were well supported and could speak up if they needed to. People and staff were involved in the service delivery.

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.

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 22 July 2018).

Why we inspected

We undertook a focused inspection to review the key questions of safe and well-led only. For those key question not inspected, we used the ratings awarded at the last inspection to calculate the overall rating.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Ashness Lodge on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow Up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

Ashness House is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Ashness house provides care and support for up to five men with mental health needs. At the time of our inspection there were five men were using the service.

There was a registered manager at the service at the time of our inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People told us they felt safe with staff and there were enough staff to meet their needs. Staff were trained in safeguarding and knew how to safeguard people against harm and abuse. People’s risk assessments were completed, regularly reviewed and gave sufficient information to staff on how to provide safe care. Staff kept detailed records of people’s accidents and incidents. Staff wore appropriate protection equipment to prevent the risk of spread of infection. Medicines were stored and administered safely however we have made a recommendation about the management of some medicines. The home environment was clean.

Staff undertook training and received regular supervision to help support them to provide effective care. Staff we spoke with had a good understanding of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). MCA and DoLS is legislation protecting people who are unable to make decisions for themselves or whom the state has decided need to be deprived of their liberty in their best interest. We saw people had choices about their life. The service was well decorated and adapted to meet the needs of people using the service.

People told us that they were well treated and the staff were caring. We found that care records were in place which included information about how to meet a person’s individual and assessed needs. People’s cultural and religious needs were respected when planning and delivering care. Discussions with staff members showed that they respected people’s sexual orientation so that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender people could feel accepted and welcomed in the service. People had access to a wide variety of activities.

The service had not recorded exploring people’s wishes for end of life care. We have made a recommendation about involving people in decisions about their end of life care.

The service had a complaints procedure in place and people knew how to make a complaint.

Staff told us the registered manager was supportive. The service had various effective quality assurance and monitoring mechanisms in place.

We noted that people's care plans were regularly reviewed and there was evidence that people who used the service and professionals were involved. The manager maintained a close working relationship with professionals. This ensured that people's health and social care needs were reviewed and people's needs were met.

People who used the service were happy about the service and one person told us that they were "extremely happy" living at the home. People talked positively about staff and they felt that there were sufficient numbers of staff. People who used the service stated that they were satisfied with the arrangements put in place relating to the provision of meals at the home. They indicated they could choose the food they wanted.

We noted that the effective staff recruitment procedures were in place. People's records and staff files were stored securely at the home.

The provider worked well with other services such as GPs, care coordinators and psychiatrists to provide a good quality service to people.

Recent improvements in medication management following a medication error meant that people were protected from the risks associated with medicines.

The home was short of staff at the time of our inspection and staff from the provider's other services were helping to cover vacancies. Not all staff had the skills, qualifications and experience necessary for the work. Although there was no obvious impact on safe delivery of the service, staff work alone at times and there was a risk that lack of experience could mean a risk of people's needs not being recognised and met.