Ashmount

Updated 6 February 2020

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

This inspection was carried out by one inspector.

Service and service type

Ashmount is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

The service had a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided.

Notice of inspection

The first day of our inspection was unannounced. We gave 24-hours' notice of our return visit to ensure that the registered manager was available.

What we did before the inspection

Before the inspection we looked at information we held about the service. This information included any statutory notifications that the provider had sent to the CQC. Statutory notifications include information about important events which the provider is required to send us by law. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with the registered manager, deputy manager, clinical lead nurse and three support workers. We spoke with a behaviour therapist who was visiting the home. We were unable to speak with people living at the home due to their communication impairments. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us.

We reviewed a range of records. This included three people’s care records and five medication records. We looked at five staff files in relation to recruitment and staff supervision. A variety of records relating to the management of the service, including policies and procedures were reviewed.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the provider to validate evidence found. We looked at quality assurance records. We spoke with three family members and one professional who regularly visited the service.

Updated 6 February 2020

About the service

Ashmount is a care home providing personal and nursing care and support to five people with learning disabilities and autism at the time of the inspection. The home can provide support for up to seven people.

The service has been developed and designed in line with the principles and values that underpin Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. This ensures that people who use the service can live as full a life as possible and achieve the best possible outcomes. The principles reflect the need for people with learning disabilities and/or autism to live meaningful lives that include control, choice, and independence. People using the service received planned and co-ordinated person-centred support that is appropriate and inclusive for them.

People’s experience of using this service

All five people living at the home had learning disabilities and communication impairments. Although we were unable to communicate with people we spoke with three family members who told us they were happy with the care and support their relatives received.

We spent time observing the experience of people and how staff interacted with people. People appeared relaxed and comfortable with staff. Staff interacted well with people and were caring and supportive towards them.

The home had arrangements for keeping people safe from harm. Staff ensured people were safe. Risks to people’s health and wellbeing had been assessed. There was guidance for staff on how to minimise risks to people.

People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse. Staff had received training on how to safeguard people and were aware of the procedures they should follow if they suspected that harm or abuse had occurred.

People received their prescribed medicines safely. Medicines were safely stored and monitored. Staff had received medicines administration training. They worked in partnership with people’s GPs and other health professionals to ensure that people received the correct medicines.

The provider had carried out pre-employment checks to ensure that staff were suitable for their roles in supporting people. There was a sufficient number of staff deployed to meet people’s needs. Additional staffing was provided where people required support to participate in activities.

Staff had received regular training and demonstrated they had the knowledge and skills to support people’s needs. Regular staff supervisions and appraisals had taken place.

The home was clean, tidy and well-furnished. People’s individual safety had been considered in the design and furnishing of the home and garden. Up to date safety checks had been carried out and any essential maintenance concerns had been addressed. Suitable fire safety arrangements were in place.

Staff supported people to eat a healthy diet that was in line with their individual dietary needs and preferences. Guidance and training were provided to support people’s individual eating and drinking needs.

People were supported to remain healthy. Staff had worked in partnership with health professionals to ensure people’s healthcare needs were met.

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 services supported this practice.

Staff provided people with person-centred care and support that met their individual needs and choices. People’s care and support needs were regularly reviewed, and staff were knowledgeable about how they should support these.

Staff supported people to participate in a range of social, therapeutic and community activities which met their individual needs. Family members told us that staff had supported people to successfully participate in new activities.

There was a complaints procedure and family members told us they knew how to complain. Although people were not able to verbally communicate complaints, staff had responded to their behaviours to make improvements.

The home was well managed. There was a transparent and open culture. Management monitored the quality of the services provided via regular audits and checks. Staff told us they felt well supported. Family members consistently praised the information they received, and the support provided to their relatives.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection:

The last rating for this service was Good (published 23 May 2017). The service remains rated as Good.

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.