The Care Quality Commission
  • Care Home
  • Care home

Archived: Ashleigh Court Rest Home

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

20 Fountain Road, Edgbaston, Birmingham, West Midlands, B17 8NL (0121) 420 1118

Provided and run by:
Mr Sunil Odedra and Mrs Shanti Odedra

Important: The provider of this service changed. See new profile

All Inspections

6 and 7January 2016

During a routine inspection

We inspected this home on 6 and 7 January 2016. This was an unannounced Inspection. The home was registered to provide residential care and accommodation for up to 19 older people. At the time of our inspection 18 people were living at the home.

The registered manager was present during 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 using this service told us they felt safe. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities to protect people from the risk of potential harm. Risks had been assessed to keep people safe and protected, whilst not compromising their freedom and choices.

People and their relatives made a number of positive comments about the staffing arrangements in the home and their confidence in staff. Pre-employment checks were carried out to ensure staff were suitable to work in the home. Safer recruitment checks were needed in relation to obtaining references.

People received their medicines as prescribed; however, the management of some medication needed to be improved for medication not taken on a regular basis. Potential for errors were noted in respect of medication administration where medicines were not needed routinely or were not in a monitored dosage system.

People were supported by staff who had the skills, experience and knowledge to meet people’s individual needs. Staff told us they were well supported and received supervision regularly.

Staff we spoke with had received training in relation to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). However, they were unsure about how to apply the principles of the MCA into their practice. Necessary applications to apply for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) to protect the rights of people had been submitted to the local supervisory body for authorisation.

People’s nutritional and hydration needs had been assessed and people were supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts to maintain good health. People were supported to access a wide range of health care professionals.

People told us that staff were kind and caring. We saw instances when people’s privacy and dignity were compromised.

People told us they were involved in the initial planning of their care and that they were happy with their care. People were not always involved or contributed to the reviewing of their individual needs.

People told us some activities of particular interest to them were provided for them to participate in. However the activities offered on occasions were not engaging enough for all people in the home. .

Procedures were in place to support people and their relatives to raise any complaints. Plans were in place to ensure that and informal concerns raised would be recorded and utilised to improve the service.

People, their relative’s and staff consistently told us that the registered manager was kind, approachable and supportive.

Quality assurance systems in place were ineffective to monitor and quality assure the service people received. The systems did not ensure the home was consistently well-led and compliant with regulations.

26 June and 1 July 2013

During a routine inspection

At our last inspection in February 2013, we found that process for recruiting staff was not robust enough. We followed up these concerns at this scheduled inspection and found that improvements had been made.

At this inspection we spoke with five of the 19 people who lived in the home and observed the care of the others. We saw that staff treated people with respect and responded when people asked for assistance. People were not restricted by routines or regimes within the home; for example they could choose where they wanted to spend their time; in their room or in the communal areas, and had choices about when they ate, received personal care and whether to be involved in any activities.

Staff at the home we spoke with were knowledgeable about people's health conditions and the care and support people needed.

People who used the service were protected from the risk of abuse, because staff were aware of; what could be abusive in a care home setting and the need to report any concerns.

Appropriate measures were taken to ensure that risks to people were minimised by ensuring the safety of services such as the gas, electrical equipment and supply.

There were enough qualified care staff on each shift to ensure that people received the assistance they needed.

8 February 2013

During a routine inspection

Although some people who lived at the home had dementia we were able to speak with other people that lived there. We spent time observing the lunch time meal, observing and listening to how people were assisted and spoke with three people about their care.

We observed that people were listened to and received help when they requested it. People were generally assisted well even when they were upset. When there were concerns about people's health, health professionals were contacted and their advice acted upon. We spoke to three staff and the manager who were knowledgeable about the care specific people needed.

People received their medication as it was prescribed.

The processes for employing staff needed to be more robust to ensure that there were enough checks undertaken before staff were judged to be safe to work with vulnerable people.

There were systems in place to monitor the risks to people and risk management plans to reduce these risks. These were effective in managing the health, safety and welfare of people that used the service.

19 January 2011 and 18 September 2012

During a routine inspection

Some people were not able to voice their opinions due to their mental health needs. We spoke with a person using the service who told us that he was satisfied with the care that he received.

During lunchtime we asked a person about the standard of the meals provided. He told us that there were always choices but if he was not feeling well that soup and bread would be offered. He told us that choices for breakfast included porridge, egg and bacon or that something else could be requested.

The person who showed us his bedroom commented that the standard of hygiene was good and that he had his own en-suite shower to use when he wanted to.

We were told by the Registered Manager that quarterly audits of medications were carried out by the Primary Care Trust.

During the visit we were told by an external contractor that a new call system was being installed and was due for completion the following day. He confirmed that as well as bedrooms it was being fitted in all communal rooms and bathrooms. This will ensure that people can summon assistance when they need to.