Background to this inspection
Updated
28 January 2022
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.
As part of CQC’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic we are looking at how services manage infection control and visiting arrangements. This was a targeted inspection looking at the infection prevention and control measures the provider had in place. We also asked the provider about any staffing pressures the service was experiencing and whether this was having an impact on the service.
This inspection took place on 17 January 2022 and was announced. We gave the service 24 hours’ notice of the inspection.
Updated
28 January 2022
This inspection took place on 29 March and 9, 12 April 2018. The first day of the inspection was unannounced.
Ashcourt Care Home is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Ashcourt is a purpose-built care home with bedrooms over two floors in a suburban neighbourhood of Liverpool. The home had 42 en-suite bedrooms, all for single occupancy. The home had two lounge areas, a dining area, accessible gardens, a conservatory, a smoking room and accessible bath and shower rooms on each floor. Each floor was accessible by staircases and a passenger lift.
The home was registered to provide care and accommodation for up to 42 people. At the time of our visit 38 people were living at the home. Ashcourt Care Home provides residential care for older people.
The home required 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. A new manager had been in place for two months, they had not yet applied to become registered with the CQC.
During our previous inspection in October 2016 we had found breaches of regulation 9, 11, 12 and 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The overall rating for the service was ‘requires improvement’. Following the inspection, we issued a warning notice for the breach of regulation 12. We also asked the provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve the key questions; ‘Is the service safe?’ ‘Is the service effective? ‘Is the service caring? ‘Is the service responsive?’ and ‘Is the service well-led?’ To at least a rating of good.
At the previous inspection there were concerns with risk assessments and some of the safety checks of the building were also not kept up to date. Some people’s care plans did not reflect their support needs, reviews of the care plans did not show involvement from people or their relatives. Activities at the home were limited. Management’s audits had not highlighted these problems and the service provided to people did not follow the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).
At this inspection we saw that there had been improvements made in these areas and the service was compliant with all of the health and social care regulations. The breaches we identified in October 2016 had been addressed, the overall rating is now ‘good’.
People and their relatives told us that they felt safe living at the home. One person’s relative told us, “I feel mum is safe when I am not with her. I feel confident that they care as I would.” Feedback from people’s relatives and visiting health care professionals was that staffing levels had improved. During our visit we saw that there was enough staff to meet people’s needs safely.
People told us that the staff were caring and friendly towards them. One person told us that they thought the staff were, “Very good and friendly.” Another person told us, “They have all been very nice.” A third person told us that staff stop and take the time to ask people how they are.
Staff received training appropriate to their role. They told us that they felt well supported and effective in their roles. We saw that trained staff administered people’s medication safely.
We saw that the service had appropriate safeguarding policies in place, new staff were recruited safely and staff received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults.
People told us that the home’s environment and their rooms were nice, clean and well kept. There was ongoing improvements being made to the home’s communal areas. There was also a series of health and safety checks in place to ensure the building was safe.
People had an individualised care plan which reflected their needs and preferences. Appropriate risk assessments were in place along with plans to reduce any risks identified. People are supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. People and their relatives praised the quality and variety of activities available at the home.
During mealtimes there was a relaxed and unhurried atmosphere. However, feedback about the food was mixed. There had been a series of temporary staff in the kitchen, however permanent staff had recently been appointed.
The manager at the home undertook a series of daily and periodic audits and checks of the quality of the service provided to people. People and their relatives were consulted in a variety of ways.