Archived: Ashdale

Below is a summary of what we found. The people who lived at Ashdale were unable to communicate with us in a meaningful way. Therefore we observed staff interactions with people and the care that staff provided to people. We spoke with three people's relatives, the registered manager, the operations manager and two other staff about the service.

If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

Potential risks to people had been identified and assessed. There were risk management plans and guidance for staff in place to address risks that had been identified. One person's relative told us 'Risks to X are identified and managed.' The provider had systems to ensure that if a serious incident took place it was reviewed by the relevant senior staff so that appropriate action could be taken to support the person.

There were processes in place to ensure that the service could respond to unexpected emergencies such as cold weather or fire.

The service had previously been non-compliant with medicines but we found at this inspection that the administration of medicines was managed safely. There were processes in place to check that the administration of medicines had been correctly recorded.

CQC monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards which applies to care homes. We saw evidence that staff at the service had received relevant training and the registered manager demonstrated that they were aware of how to make an application if required.

Is the service effective?

We saw evidence that people had personalised care plans in place that reflected their choices and preferences about their care. Staff had received appropriate training for example, in relation to the management of one person's specific health condition. Staff used evidence based communication systems to communicate with people and to support them in their daily lives. These were communication systems that had been recognised for their effectiveness in promoting communication with people with a learning disability.

People had health care plans in place that identified their health needs and how these were to be met. People's weight had been monitored regularly. One person's relative told us 'X's keyworker is responsive to changes in his health.'

People had been able to make choices about their rooms which we saw were all decorated to individual's tastes. People were able to choose to spend time in their room or the communal areas of the service such as the kitchen, lounge, dining room or the garden.

Is the service caring?

All the people's relatives we spoke with told us that staff were caring. One person's relative told us 'The staff are interested in people. They are caring.' We observed that staff interacted positively with people. They demonstrated a good understanding of each person's needs and preferences.

We saw from people's records that they had been supported to identify people who were important in their lives. We saw from people's records that they had regular contact with these people and this was confirmed by the relatives we spoke with.

People's records had been stored securely and their information kept confidential.

Is the service responsive?

We saw that people's care had been regularly reviewed. Their care plans identified their strengths and areas of independence.

People led active lives and accessed a range of community based activities. The service provided a car which staff used to enable people to access the local area.

Information about how to make a complaint had been promoted in the home.

Is the service well-led?

There were regular visits to the service by the operations manager and they supported the registered manager to carry out their management role. There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided, which included daily electronic reporting.

We spoke with a person's relative who told us 'The manager is a good leader.' People's relatives told us that they felt able to speak freely with the registered manager about any issues that might arise.

There was evidence that the service had worked with a range of local agencies to ensure that people's needs had been met.

We observed that staff understood people's needs and supported them in a kind, friendly and respectful manner. People's care plans provided detailed information about their needs and people's health and welfare was assessed and looked after appropriately. Staff showed a good understanding of how best to care for people, and we observed that people behaved in a relaxed way within the home and interacted well with staff. People were supported to access a range of activities outside the home, according to their interests. We found that staff were trained for their roles and were supported through supervisions and appraisals.

Systems were in place for monitoring the quality of the service, and action was taken to make improvements where these were identified. We found however that the recording of medicine administration had not been robust and we highlighted this to the registered manager at the end of our visit.

We saw that people's needs were assessed and reviewed and people's health and wellbeing was monitored and supported. People were supported to take part in activities that they liked. The service also had arrangements for dealing with emergencies.

There were sufficient staff to provide care and support and staff had attended training in topics such as safeguarding vulnerable adults and the Mental Capacity Act 2005. We observed that people behaved in a relaxed way at the service, and treated it as their home. There had been no complaints about the service in the past year, and procedures were in place to obtain people's views.