Ashview

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

At the last inspection, the provider was in breach of the regulations because they had failed to plan people's care to ensure it met their needs and preferences and maintain their autonomy, independence and involvement in the community. At this assessment, we found people’s care was person centred and based on their individual needs. People were listened to, involved in the life of the service and had full access to the local community and what it offered. Improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of the regulations relating to the question of Responsive. Staff were very responsive to people’s needs, likes and dislikes. They knew people well, their abilities and personalities. Barriers had been removed to ensure people were not discriminated against and people had equal access to social and leisure opportunities. Information was in accessible formats so that people could understand and make informed decisions.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us staff focussed on helping them to achieve their goals. A person said, “Staff are good at helping me to do things for myself but helping me when I get stuck.” A family member said, “We are so happy with [person’s name] progress.” People's care plans promoted their rights to take control of their care arrangements. For example, people were encouraged to write their own daily records, gaining confidence in their writing abilities. The daily record sheet was adapted to included rules lines to further assisted them with their writing skills. This fostered a greater willingness to continue to document their daily experiences.

People’s care and support was person centred and focussed on their quality of life and aspirations. Support for people was coordinated, with input from external professionals where practical health or social care support was needed. People's care plans contained enough information about what was important to them to enable staff to deliver care in line with their personalised needs and preferences.

People were supported to monitor and adapt their goals to ensure they remained meaningful and relevant to them.

People told us that there was more continuity at the service, as they knew the staff who were supporting them.

Staff supported people to access community services. Staff were organised and responsive in managing their time with people. The rota arrangements complimented this approach.

The manager delivered and co-ordinating services people needed and considered their needs and preferences, including those with protected characteristics under the Equality Act and those at most risk of a poorer experience of care.

People’s care plans outlined their preferred ways of communicating. People had care plans in easy read format and pictures and also hospital passports to explain to nursing staff their needs and preferences if they had to seek medical attention.

The manager was proactive in contacting external professionals to support people with their communication. For example, one person had a speech and language assessment, and a communication passport was being devised to enable staff to be more responsive and understand their ways of communicating.

The provider met the Accessible Information Standard (a set of standards to make sure people could have information in their preferred style and language) and information was tailored to people’s needs.

People were able to share feedback, ideas and raise concerns and issues about their care and life in the service. People were involved in meetings, sessions sharing important information relevant to them and planning future events. People and staff worked together on writing and producing a regular informative and easy read newsletter which was appreciated by people, staff and family members alike.

As part of involving people in the life of the service, specific tasks were undertaken with the support of staff. For example, one person took the rubbish out every evening, whilst another watered the vegetable and flower garden. Another person put together the shopping list and another went shopping and put the groceries away on return. The manager told us, everyone was happy and proud to be actively involved which contributed to their sense of purpose and community.

People were supported to participate in their chosen social and leisure interests on a regular basis. People's care plans provided information about what they enjoyed doing, and records, photos and images evidenced that people’s lives had meaning and fulfilment. The staff rota was planned around people’s day to day lives, ensuring there were drivers available when needed and enough staff to fully support people to go about their daily lives.

People could access care, treatment and support when they needed to and in a way that worked for them, which promoted equality, removed barriers or delays and protected their rights. People could expect their care and support to be accessible, timely and in line with best practice.

The provider ensured staff had equal access to support and work-related systems to complete their role. Reasonable adjustments were made for people and staff with protected characteristics under the Equality Act.

Systems were in place to assess people’s needs to ensure the service could meet them. The manager took into consideration the needs of people who already lived at the service to ensure there was equality of opportunity for all.

People told us they had been listened to about the barriers which affected them from living full lives. For example, the environment had now become more physically accessible and free from obstacles and barriers.

Staff had completed training in equality and diversity to better understand and respond to people’s needs and ensure their rights were upheld.

The systems and processes implemented as part of the ongoing improvement meant people had equal access to opportunities which had provided positive outcomes for them.

We did not discuss this topic with people directly at the service. The provider was not supporting anybody with end-of-life care at the time of the assessment.

The manager told us they would have sensitive conversations with people, their representatives and families when people were ready to discuss their wishes and preferences. Any information and decisions would be incorporated into their care plans when required. The manager was updating their skills by attending an end of life care course in order to cascade learning to all staff.