Ashill Lodge Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

The service was not always responsive. There was a lack of communication within the service and their recruitment didn’t promote equality. There was no evidence of regular meetings within the service for people living within the service or their relatives to ask for their feedback and people told us they were not involved in reviewing care plans.

This service scored 36 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

When we spoke to people in the service is we were not assured that person-centred care was being delivered. People didn't always feel their needs could be looked after appropriately and several relatives we spoke with said they hadn't been involved in reviewing the care plan and there was no evidence of treatment choices being offered.

Staff could't assure us that person-centred care was being delivered. When we spoke to the staff about incidents involving people in the service and them becoming distressed and how they would respond to it, their response was "make them a cup of tea" This didn't assure that they knew the individuals or their needs. They couldn't express what triggers that individual or how to deescalate it and support that person and their emotional well-being.

we observed several meal times and we could not always be assured that person-centred care was being delivered. On our last visit to the service, one individual was eating their meal at lunchtime and was struggling to use the cutlery. Several staff walked past this person and no one noticed the person struggling. There was no adaptive cutlery available to support this individual.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

One person we spoke to in the service didn't feel they were informed of what was going on in the service. They spoke about people coming in to their room that they were not aware of they said "We should have also been told by the staff that people were in working here. " A few relatives we spoke with didn't feel they were always informed of the different things going on, within the service, like staffing or management changes.

Following the assessment we carried out, the service held a Residents meeting which was a responsive approach however there was no evidence of the meeting minutes being shared with staff, relatives or the people within the service and the actions taken from the meeting.

There was no additional formats within the service of information provided to people and the complaints procedure only being displayed in the reception of the service which didn't assure us that this enabled people to raise concerns as people are not given the information appropriately.

A lot of the relatives we spoke with didn't feel that complaints they had raised had been resolved or that they always received appropriate feedback. However all said they knew how to raise a concern. We spoke to 1 person and they said they can press their call bell but they were not aware of how to raise a concern formally. We were not assured People were involved in decisions about their care needs as there was no evidence to show that people had been involved in their care planning.

Since we began our assessment of the service, there has been a residents meeting but there was no clear agenda and no discussions of what is happening in the service. It asked people about the activities they would like and the Registered Person told us what has been discussed and what they would like to plan to do but this hadn't been shared with people in the service or their families.

There was no evidence of regular meetings when we first started the assessment which involved people in the service or their relatives. The complaints procedure is not accessible to all people within the service as only displayed in reception or on their website.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

The Majority of Relatives felt the communication was often poor and didn’t feel reassured that the service reacts promptly to seeking medical advice when it is required. But they felt the staff always try to engage in conversation with people in the service. One relative said “they seem to care and cope very well with dementia”

When we asked staff about discrimination and inequality the majority of the staff explained they haven’t witnessed any concerns but only some staff could explain what discrimination and inequality meant. We were not assured when the staff couldn’t explain to us what it meant how could they be assured they haven’t observed it in the service.

The services processes weren’t always fair and didn’t promote equality. The service’s recruitment processes were not robust and this could mean people could experience inequality. We were not assured that the service actively asked for feedback from people or their families in the setting about the care they receive. There was no evidence of regular meetings with people who use the service or their relatives.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.