We carried out a review of the data available to us about Ascot House - Oldbury 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 Ascot House - Oldbury, you can give feedback on this service.
People’s experience of using this service:
• People were kept safe and secure from risk of harm. Potential risks to people had been assessed and managed appropriately by the provider. People received their medicines safely and as prescribed and were supported by sufficient numbers of staff to ensure that risk of harm was minimised.
• Staff had been recruited appropriately and had received relevant training so they were able to support people with their individual care and support needs.
• Staff sought people’s consent before providing care and support. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
• People were treated with kindness and compassion. People’s rights to privacy was respected by the staff who supported them and their dignity was maintained. People were supported to express their views and be actively involved in making decisions about their care and support needs.
• People’s choices and independence were respected and promoted. Staff responded appropriately to people’s support needs. People received care from staff that knew them well.
• People using the service were confident about approaching the registered manager if they needed to. The provider had effective auditing systems in place to monitor the effectiveness and quality of service provision. The views of people on the quality of the service was gathered and used to support service development.
Rating at last inspection:
At our last inspection in January 2016 we rated the service as good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection.
Why we inspected:
This was a planned inspection based on the rating at the last inspection. The service remained rated as Good overall.
Follow up:
We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our inspection programme. If any concerning information is received we may inspect sooner.
The provider is registered to accommodate and deliver personal care to a maximum of six adults who lived with a learning disability and/or mental health needs. At the time of our inspection six people lived at the home.
At our last planned inspection of January 2013 and responsive inspection of October 2013 the provider was meeting all of the regulations that we assessed.
The manager was registered with us as is required by law. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People were offered their medicines as they had been prescribed but processes to ensure full safety needed to be enhanced.
Although processes were in place additional actions were needed to fully ensure that recruitment systems were robust.
People felt safe. Risks to people had been assessed appropriately and were monitored. Systems were in place to protect people from the risk of abuse.
There were enough staff on duty to meet the care and support needs of people.
Staff felt that they had received adequate training to equip them with the skills and knowledge they needed to provide safe and appropriate support to the people who lived at the home.
Staff understood the circumstances when the legal requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) were to be followed to prevent any unlawful restrictions.
People felt it was a good place and that they were happy there. People were encouraged and supported to be as independent as possible.
People felt that the staff were helpful and kind. They confirmed that staff were respectful, polite and helpful.
Complaints systems were available for people to use if they felt they had a need.
People felt that the quality of service was good. The management of the home was stable. The registered manager knew when they needed to send us notifications about incidents that occurred. Audits were undertaken to determine if changes or improvements were needed.
People told us and we saw that that people's views were sought and acted upon. Staff spoken to was able to tell us about people's needs so that they received care in a way that they preferred.
We saw that people's consent was always sought before any care and treatment was carried out. Staff said, 'I always check that people are ok with what I am doing with them.'
We saw that peoples nutritional needs were met and people received appropriate support when they had difficulty with eating.
All staff spoken to was able to tell us about people's needs and records seen confirmed that staff were knowledgeable about the people they cared for. We saw positive interactions between staff and people that lived at the home. One person said, 'I talk a lot to my keyworker and we are planning for my future.'
We saw that people were relaxed in their environment and that systems were in place to keep people safe from harm. One person told us, 'Staff are friendly and helpful.' Staff received a range of training so that they had up to date knowledge and skills in order to support the people who lived in the home.
There were systems in place to monitor how the home was run, to ensure people received a quality service.
Involvement in people's care and support is promoted by staff. One person we spoke to said they were happy at the home and liked to go out to the shops on their own. 'I like burgers and chips and I can have them here'.
People are in receipt of effective and appropriate care that meets their needs. We were told by a person 'I am happy here, it's more chilled here, the staff aren't arrogant'.
There are suitable arrangements in place to ensure that people are safeguarded against the risk of abuse. People living at the home feel safe, and are confident that staff will protect them.
Evidence we gathered indicated that staffing levels were adequate and people told us that there were enough staff to meet their needs. One person told us that 'this is a good company to work for, the training is brilliant'.
People receive a service that matches their expectations and choices, and are involved in developments through regular consultation.
We spoke with people who told us that they were involved in their care. One person told us that staff had gone through their care plan and that they had been involved in discussing their care.
Another person told us they 'get the support that I need' and 'key worker goes over my care plan every month'. The person also told us that they were able to 'give my opinion' and 'people listen to me'.
People told us that they liked their bedroom layouts and one person told us they could have the layout 'how I wanted and can play video games when I want to'.
People told us that they liked living at Ascot House and got the support they needed. People also told that Ascot House had 'nice staff' and 'receive the support that is needed'.
One person told us that the required support when shaving and that 'someone will come and help'.
We saw that people were well presented, clean and looked content at the time of our visit.
We saw overall that there was good interaction with staff and residents. We saw that there were activities planned on the day of our visit and some people were going to a coffee shop or about to visit West Bromwich.
We saw in once instance that a carer was more interested in watching television then interacting with a resident. The carer offered little support to the resident and was focused on the television. The senior on duty addressed this issue before we raised our concerns and saw the interaction improved with the carer for the remainder of our visit.
People told us that the staff were friendly and respectful. People also told us that staff were nice and were always supportive.
People told us that they had 'nice meals' and 'choice of food'. One person told us that Ascot House had supported them with a soft diet which was still enjoyable.
People told us that staff encouraged their independence and people often helped with cooking. People also told us they had a choice from a menu which changed every week. One person told us that they can 'give ideas' for meals in the residents' meetings.
People told us that they took part in activities such as cycling, walking and played snooker. People also told us that they would go out on visits to West Bromwich. One person told us that they can do activities 'when I want to'.
People told us that they knew how to complain if they had any concerns and that they felt 'safe'. One person told us that the manager was approachable.
People told us that residents' meetings are held where they can discuss holiday and give ideas on what the plans are for future activities.