- Care home
Ashley Court Care Limited
All Inspections
26 February 2020
During a routine inspection
Ashley Court is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care for up to 28 people aged 65 and over. The accommodation is provided in a single building, arranged over two floors, with communal facilities including two lounges, a dining room, hairdressing salon, conservatory and secure garden. At the time of our inspection, 24 people were using the service, some of whom were living with dementia.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The provider monitored the quality and safety of the service. However, improvements were needed to ensure staff were clear on their role in the management of the service in the event of the provider being absent from the service. Medicines audits and monitoring of consent related activity also needed to be improved, to ensure they were consistently effective in identifying and rectifying any shortfalls.
People told us the staff always respected their privacy and dignity and provided care in their preferred way. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives, in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; however, some improvements were needed to the policies and systems in the service to demonstrate they consistently supported this practice.
People felt safe and were protected from the risk of harm by staff who understood their responsibilities to identify and report any signs of potential abuse. Any concerns were taken seriously and investigated in line with local safeguarding procedures.
There were enough, suitably recruited staff to meet people’s needs. Staff received training and ongoing support to meet people’s individual needs. Staff worked closely with other professionals, who were positive about the care and support people received.
People were supported to take part in activities and social events which were inclusive and based on their interests. People benefited from close links with the local community which helped to increase friendships and reduce social isolation.
The provider and staff promoted a caring, inclusive atmosphere. People and their relatives felt confident any concerns and complaints they raised would be acted on. There were systems in place to capture people’s views on how the service could be improved and these were acted on. Staff enjoyed working at the service and felt supported and valued by the provider.
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 4 October 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
23 August 2017
During a routine inspection
At the last inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection we found the service remained Good.
At our last inspection we found medicines were not always stored safely, at this inspection we found the provider had made the required improvements. People had support from staff to safely administer medicines as prescribed and medicines were stored safely. People were protected from the risk of harm. Staff understand how to safeguard people and manage risks effectively. People were supported by sufficient staff that had been recruited safely.
People were supported by staff that understood their needs. Staff were knowledgeable and had regular updates to their training. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People were given a choice of food and drinks and had access to health professionals to support and maintain their health and wellbeing.
People said staff were caring and they felt involved in all aspects of their care; Staff ensured people had a choice and were supported to maintain their independence. People’s privacy and dignity was maintained by staff.
People received support from staff that understood their needs and preferences. People were supported by staff to take part in activities and could spend time doing things they enjoyed. People understood how to make a complaint and complaints were used to improve the quality of the service people received.
People felt able to engage with the management team. Staff told us they could access support from the management team. We saw the provider had systems in place to ensure people received a good quality service.
31 March 2015
During a routine inspection
We undertook an unannounced inspection of Ashley Court Care Limited on 31 March 2015. At the last inspection in July 2013 the service was meeting the regulations with all of the areas that we looked at.
Ashley Court Care Limited provides personal care in a residential setting for up to 28 older people. The provider had recently increased its provision from 21 to 28 service user places. At the time of our inspection there were 21 people living at the service.
There was a registered manager in post 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People, visitors and external professionals were positive about the care provided by the service. Our own observations confirmed that care was attentive and compassionate.
People felt safe using the service. Risks to people were assessed so that staff knew how best to support people safely. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse.
We found there were enough staff to support people during our inspection. Staff were recruited in a safe way.
We found some topical creams were incorrectly stored. We also found that staff did not have access to guidance for all people who required medicines on occasions; such as those who required pain relief.
People’s care was regularly reviewed. People and their representatives were involved in decisions about care.
Staff were supported to be effective in their roles and to deliver good care. Staff were aware of how to support people’s choices and promote their rights.
People received adequate levels of food and drink to keep them healthy. Staff were aware of how to support different people with special food and drink needs. People’s health was supported by access to appropriate external healthcare professionals.
Staff delivered care that was compassionate and supported people as individuals. Staff knew what conditions people had and how to support these. Staff respected people’s dignity, privacy and independence.
Staff were able to pick up on people’s changing care needs. They implemented advice form appropriate healthcare professionals in order to assist people with their well-being. People’s needs were assessed using appropriate assessment tools. However, we found that, while staff knew how to support people, people did not always have specialist care plans in their records to reflect this.
People knew how to raise matters of complaint with staff and were comfortable in doing so. No one we spoke with told us they had any reason to complain.
The management promoted a positive culture at the service. Staff felt supported by the provider. The provider carried out a number of audits to identify and address issues with the quality of the service.
5 July 2013
During a routine inspection
We found that people's consent for care and treatment was obtained before this was provided.
Care plans provided staff with relevant information to promote their understanding of people's care needs and how to meet them.
People had access to a varied menu and could be confident that their nutritional needs would be met.
The design and layout of the premises was suitable to meet people's needs. One person who used the service said, "I've got my own bedroom and it's very comfortable."
The home had an effective quality assurance system in place to ensure people were not placed at risk of inappropriate care or treatment. One person who used the service said, "We have meetings to discuss social activities and the menus."
22 May 2012
During an inspection looking at part of the service
We also found that the management of people's prescribed medicines were unsafe and could have placed people at risk.
A further unannounced follow up visit was carried out on 23 May 2012, to find out what action the service provider had taken to improve standards and to ensure people receive an effective and safe service.
We used a number of methods to find out people's experience of using the service. We looked at care records, systems in place for the safe management of medicines. We spoke with three people who use the service and three care staff. We observed care practices and how care staff interacted with people who live there.
We found that care plans provided sufficient information to support staff's understanding of people's care needs and where people had capacity; they were involved in their care planning.
One person who uses the service said, 'I'm happy here, they do look after me.'
Another person said, 'Its aright here, the food is good.'
We saw that action had been taken to ensure the management of people's prescribed medicines was more robust and that people received the appropriate support to take their medicines safely.
We spoke with three care staff who demonstrated a good understanding of how to safeguard people from potential abuse.
We saw that people had access to the service's complaints procedure, so they know how the share any concerns they may have.
We found that the service's quality assurance system had been improved to ensure people receive good outcomes.
23 June 2011
During an inspection in response to concerns
Another person said, 'It's OK living here.' 'The staff are fine, on the whole they are very good.'
We observed that not everyone was dressed appropriately to maintain their dignity.
We saw staff engaging in pastimes with people and talking to them in a caring manner.
We discovered that not all staff have a clear understanding of safeguarding and this could place vulnerable people at risk.
We observed that the management of people's medicines were unsafe.
One person said, 'The staff are fine.'
Another person told us they were happy with the service provided.
We observed that there were insufficient monitoring systems in place to ensure everyone receives a service that is specific to meet their needs safely.
One person who uses the service said, 'I have no complaints.'
Another person who lives there said they were unaware of the home's complaint procedure but would share any concerns with the staff.
7 December 2011
During an inspection looking at part of the service
One person who lives there said, 'I can't complain they do look after me.'
Another person who uses the service said, 'Its alright here, the food is good.'
Although efforts had been made to improve the information contained in care plans, the management of medicines was unsafe and this could compromise people's care and treatment.
People who use the service have access to the home's complaint procedure which is published in various formats to promote people's understanding.
The home's quality assurance auditing tools were not entirely robust to ensure people receive safe effective services at all times.
27 January 2011
During an inspection in response to concerns
Some people told us they are able to share their concerns but the absence of a complaints procedure in a format they can understand does not ensure everyone will know how to share their concerns or be confident they will be listened to.
People who live there are complimentary about the staff. However, there is insufficient evidence to show that staff have the necessary training and skills to meet people's needs.