We carried out a review of the data available to us about Ashlea Court Care Home 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 Ashlea Court Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
We found the following examples of good practice
¿ Visitors completed health questionnaires which supported track and trace systems. Visitors temperatures and oxygen levels were also taken prior to entering the home.
¿ All staff were trained to use equipment which monitored residents’ pulse and oxygen levels to determine if they were unwell.
¿ All vulnerable staff had risk assessments in place and adjustments made as required.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Ashlea Court Care Home is a residential home providing personal and nursing to up to 48 people. At the time of our inspection 38 people were using the service.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
People were safe at Ashlea Court Care Home. There were enough, safely recruited staff to meet people’s needs and the home was clean and well maintained. Any risks associated with people’s care were well managed. We found some errors in the recording of medicines given to people, although there was no evidence people had not received medicines they needed. The manager took robust action to address our findings immediately after the inspection.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. We made a recommendation about checking to make sure all assessments of people’s capacity were specific about what decision needed to be made.
People’s diverse needs were assessed in detail and care was planned to meet these needs. People were able to make decisions about their care or received appropriate support when they could not. Staff had the training and support they needed, and ensured people got support from health and social care professionals when this was needed. People’s wishes for their end of life care were discussed.
Staff were caring and understood people’s needs. People and their relatives were able to contribute to care plans, however we made a recommendation about making evidencing people’s views. . All people who used the service were able to participate in a variety of activities if they wished to do so. People who preferred to spend time in their rooms were not isolated. People enjoyed the meals served at the home.
People felt able to raise concerns about their care, and there were good processes in place to ensure complaints were fully investigated.
There was good leadership in the home, and people and staff were consulted and able to make suggestions. There was robust oversight of the quality of the service, and the provider had a good approach to ensuring improvements were made as a result of reviewing information about accidents and incidents.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published June 2017).
Why we inspected
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Ashlea Court Care Home was purpose built several years ago and was registered to provider accommodation and care to persons who require nursing or personal care. Since the new registered provider took registration of the service in June 2016 the service has not provided nursing care.
Ashlea Court Care Home now provides support to a maximum of 48 older people who may also be living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 39 people using the service. Bedroom accommodation is on two floors, accessed by a passenger lift and there are communal lounges, dining areas, a hair-dressing salon, an activities annexe and enclosed garden spaces for people to make use of.
The registered provider was required to have a registered manager in post. On the day of the inspection there had been a registered manager in post for the last year. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) 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 registered provider had systems in place to detect, monitor and report potential or actual safeguarding concerns. Staff were appropriately trained in safeguarding adults from abuse and understood their responsibilities in respect of managing potential or actual safeguarding concerns. Risks were managed and reduced so that people avoided injury or harm.
The premises were safely maintained and there was evidence in the form of maintenance certificates, contracts and records to show this. Staffing numbers, calculated with a dependency tool, were sufficient to meet people’s need. Recruitment policies, procedures and practices were carefully followed to ensure staff were suitable to support vulnerable people. We found that medicines were safely managed.
People were supported by qualified and competent staff that were regularly supervised and had their personal performance appraised. Communication was effective and people’s rights were protected. Staff had knowledge and understanding of their roles and responsibilities in respect of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 and they understood the importance of people being supported to make decisions for themselves. The registered manager explained how the service worked with other health and social care professionals and family members to ensure decisions were made in people’s best interests where they lacked capacity.
Adequate nutrition and hydration was provided to maintain people’s health and wellbeing. The premises were suitable for providing care to older people and those living with dementia.
Staff were kind and knew about people’s needs and preferences. People were involved in all aspects of their care and were always asked for their consent before staff undertook to support them. People’s wellbeing, privacy, dignity and independence were monitored and respected. This ensured people were respected, that they felt satisfied and were enabled to take control of their lives.
Support was provided to people in accordance with their person-centred care plans, which reflected their needs well and were regularly reviewed. People had the opportunity to engage in activities if they wished to and these were facilitated after consulting people about their preferences. Good family and friend connections were encouraged. We found that there was an effective complaint procedure in place and people had their complaints investigated without bias.
The service was well-led and people had the benefit of a positive culture and the management style. There was an effective system in place for checking the quality of the service using audits, satisfaction surveys, meetings and good communication.
There were opportunities for people to make their views known through direct discussion with the registered manager or the staff as well as more formal complaint and quality monitoring formats. People were assured that recording systems used in the service protected their privacy and confidentiality.