Archived: Ashwood House - Southampton

Updated 22 May 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 27 January 2015, 04 and 05 February 2015 and was unannounced.’ The inspection was carried out by an Inspector.

Before the inspection the registered manager completed a Provider Information return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

We used information from previous inspection reports and notifications sent to us by the registered manager. A notification is information about important events which the provider is required to tell us about by law. We used all this information to decide which areas to focus on.

We spoke with the registered manager, three members of staff and all four people living at the home. We spoke with two relatives. We also spoke with the registered provider. We looked at people’s medicine records and three people’s care records. We looked at four staff member’s recruitments records and their records of supervisions and training. We observed how staff interacted with people whilst supporting them with a range of activities in the home. We spoke with a social services care manager, a member of the local safeguarding team and an independent advocate.

We last inspected Ashwood House on 05 December 2013, where no concerns were identified.

Updated 22 May 2015

We carried out this inspection on 27 January 2015, 04 and 05 February 2015, it was unannounced.

Ashwood House is a detached property in Shirley, Southampton. The home provides personal care, accommodation and support for up to five people with a learning disability or who have autism spectrum disorder. There were four people living in the home when we carried out this inspection.

The home 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.

People living in the home appeared happy and comfortable with the support they received from the registered manager and staff. Staff were available throughout the day and involved people in decisions about activities and meals. Staff interacted well with people and responded to people’s request for support when needed.

CQC is required by law to monitor the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). The registered manager and staff showed that they understood their responsibility under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and DoLS. The registered manager had made applications and were waiting for a response from the supervisory body.

People were appropriately assessed regarding their mental capacity to make certain decisions. Processes were in place to ensure best interest meetings were held, which involved people’s next of kin, health and social care professionals and an advocate. This ensured specific decisions about their care and welfare were made with the consent of all involved.

There were enough staff to make sure that people’s needs were met. Staff had been trained in how to protect people from harm. They would take action in the event of any suspicion of abuse. Staff would be report any concerns to the registered manager and were confident that it would be handled appropriately.

People were involved in their care planning and could speak to staff about changes they wanted to make to their care plans. Staff supported people with making and attending their health appointments. Care plans were regularly reviewed and updated to show changes in people’s needs. Staff spoke with people in a caring way and supported them to do what they wanted. People were supported to have a well-balanced diet and they chose their own menus.

Staff knew what was important to people and encouraged them to be as independent as possible. People were given individual support to attend a range of activities and hobbies of their own choosing. This included attending a day centre, work experience, visits to places of interest, shops and restaurants. People liked the staff who supported them as they said they were kind and treated them with dignity and respect.

Medicines were managed, stored and administered safely. Staff were trained and observed to be competent when administering medicines. Records of medicine administration were complete and up to date. People received their medicines when they should and as prescribed.

Risk assessments were in place for the environment and for each individual person who received care. These were regularly reviewed and staff were aware of their contents and how to manage risks for people. Systems were in place to monitor and review accidents and incidents and to make relevant improvements to the service where possible.

Staff files contained details of their recruitment and induction training. People were involved in selecting new staff to support them. Staff received appropriate training and support to enable them to perform their duties through training and regular supervisions with their line manager.

There were systems in place where people could express their views of the service to the registered manager. These included formal and informal meetings, events, questionnaires and through daily contact.

The provider monitored the quality of the service through regular audits. The registered manager carried out regular checks to ensure the environment was safe and to identify where improvements may be required. There were clear and up to date re cords of these checks.