Archived: Royal Mencap Society - Ashfield Court Care Home Also known as Ashfield Court Care Home

Updated 23 March 2015

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, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 12 November 2014 and was unannounced. The inspection team consisted of one inspector and an Expert by Experience. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The Expert by Experience on this occasion had expertise in supporting people with needs relating to their behaviour.

Before we visited we reviewed the information we held about the home including notifications. Notifications are events that the provider is required to inform us about by law. The registered manager had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

During our visit we spoke with five people living at home, six care staff and the registered manager.

We looked at the care plans for four people, the staff training and induction records for staff, five people’s medicine records and the quality assurance audits that the registered manager completed

We observed care and support in shared areas and we also used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI) in one area. SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who cannot fully express their views by talking with us.

We invited commissioners of the service to give their views about the care provided in the home and they did not express any concerns.

Updated 23 March 2015

This inspection took place on 12 November 2014 and was unannounced. There were no breaches of legal requirements at our previous inspection on 18 September 2013.   

Royal Mencap Society is registered to provide accommodation and care at Ashfield Court Care Home for up to 24 people with learning disabilities. Accommodation is arranged in four bungalows that each have six bedrooms and an additional bungalow is used for administration and activities. There were 24 people there when we visited.  

There was a registered manager in post at the time of our inspection. 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 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.    

We found that people felt they were safely cared for by staff who knew what action to take to keep everyone safe. The provider used safe systems when new staff were recruited and people living at the service were involved in selecting new staff. All risks to safety were minimised and medicines were well managed to make sure people received them safely as prescribed.  

Staff received regular training and knew how to meet people’s individual needs.  Any important changes in people’s needs were passed on to all staff when they started their shifts, so that they all knew the up to date information.  

The Care Quality Commission is required by law to monitor the operation of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and to report on what we find in care homes. DoLS is a code of practice to supplement the main MCA 2005 code of practice. Providers are required to submit applications to a ‘Supervisory Body’ for authority to make decisions about depriving people of their liberty, so that they get the care and treatment they need. We found the staff were knowledgeable about these and safeguards were appropriately in place where needed. Staff gained consent from people whenever they could and where people lacked capacity in some areas we saw that arrangements were in place for staff to act in their best interests. 

We saw that people had appropriate food and drink and staff supported them individually, so that their health needs were met.  

Staff were kind to people and cared about them. We saw that choices were given to people at all times. We found people’s privacy and dignity were respected and all confidential information was respectfully held securely.  

Staff understood how to manage people’s individual needs and assisted people to take part in appropriate daily individual activities at home and in the community.