We carried out a review of the data available to us about Ashrey Care on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Ashrey Care, you can give feedback on this service.
Ashrey Care is a domiciliary care agency registered to provide personal care to people in their own homes. The service provides support to people of all ages and different abilities. At the time of inspection, the service provided care to eight people, two of which received personal care.
People’s experience of using this service:
Relatives told us they were satisfied with the level of care and services provided to people and spoke positively about care support staff and management. They said they were confident that people were treated with respect and dignity and were safe when cared for by care support staff.
Systems were in place to help ensure people were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff records indicated that staff had received safeguarding training. Staff knew how to recognise and report any concerns or allegations of abuse. Risks to people had been assessed, updated and regularly reviewed to ensure people were safe and risks to people in relation to treatment or care were minimised.
The registered manager confirmed the service did not currently administer medicines to people. We therefore did not look at how the service managed medicines during this inspection.
People were protected from the risks associated with poor infection control because the service had processes in place to reduce the risk of infection and cross contamination.
Feedback from relatives indicated that staff were punctual and there were no issues in relation to this. There was evidence that people received care from the same staff and there was consistency in the level of care they received.
The registered manager and care support staff had the necessary knowledge and skills they needed to carry out their roles and responsibilities. Staff had received induction to the agency as well as training to ensure they had skills to support people. Staff received supervision and appraisals of their skills from the management team to help them to support people effectively.
Feedback from relatives indicated that positive relationships had developed between people using the service and staff. Relatives told us that staff had a good understanding of and were aware of the importance of treating people with respect and dignity and always did this. The registered manager and care support staff were aware of the importance of ensuring people were given a choice and promoting their independence.
People who used service received care that was responsive to their needs and their daily routines were reflected in their care plan. Care plans included information about people’s interests and preferences and staff knew people’s needs well. People had individualised care plans which had sufficient information about people and how to support them.
The service had clear procedures for receiving, handling and responding to comments and complaints. Relatives told us they did not have any complaints about the service but knew what to do if they needed to raise a complaint or concern. They told us that the registered manager was approachable and they would not hesitate to raise concerns directly with her.
The registered manager held regular meetings with the care support staff. Care support staff told us they received up to date information and had an opportunity to share good practice and any concerns they had at these meetings. They spoke positively about communication within the service.
Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service. We found the service had obtained feedback about the quality of the service through a satisfaction survey. The service also undertook checks and audits of the quality of the service.
Rating at last inspection: Unrated. The report was published on 26 May 2017. We were previously unable to rate the service as the service was only providing care to one person and therefore there was insufficient evidence for us to rate the service.
Why we inspected: This was a scheduled planned comprehensive inspection.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
There was a registered manager in post. 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.
The service was registered with the CQC in May 2015. The service did not provide personal care to a client until July 2016 and therefore we did not inspect the service during this period. This inspection on 3 May 2017 was the first inspection for the service.
The service was providing personal care to one person at the time of this inspection. The registered manager explained that she provided the care to the one person receiving personal care and a care worker was in place in case she was unable to carry out a visit.
During this inspection we found the service was operating efficiently, however as they were only providing care to one person, there was insufficient evidence for us to rate the service.
One person who used the service had limited communication and therefore we spoke with their relative. This relative told us they were satisfied with the care and services provided. They said they were confident that their relative was treated with respect and they were safe when cared for by staff.
Systems and processes were in place to help protect people from the risk of harm and staff demonstrated that they were aware of these. The registered manager and care worker had received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to recognise and report any concerns or allegations of abuse. Risk assessments had been carried out and staff were aware of potential risks to people and how to protect people from harm. These included details of the triggers and warning signs and details about how to support people appropriately.
The registered manager confirmed that the service did not currently administer medicines to the person they provided personal care to. As a result of this we did not look at how the service managed medicines as part of this inspection.
The relative we spoke with told us that the registered manager turned up on time. There was evidence that the person received care from the same staff and there was consistency in the level of care they received.
The registered manager and care worker had the necessary knowledge and skills they needed to carry out their roles and responsibilities. They spoke positively about their experiences working at the service. Staff had a good understanding of and were aware of the importance of treating people with respect and dignity. Feedback from one relative indicated that positive relationships had developed between the person using the service and the registered manager and they were treated with dignity and respect.
The person who used the service received care that was responsive to their needs and their daily routines were reflected in their care plan. The service encouraged and prompted people’s independence and we found the care plan included information about preferences.
The service had a complaints procedure in place. One relative we spoke with said that they thought the service was well managed and would not hesitate to raise concerns if they needed to.
The registered manager explained that she held regular meetings with the care worker and we saw evidence that these meetings occurred regularly. The care worker we spoke with told us that they received up to date information and had an opportunity to share good practice and any concerns they had at these meetings.
Systems were in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service. We found the service had obtained feedback about the quality of the service through a satisfaction survey. The service also undertook checks and audits of the quality of the service.