Ashleigh House

Updated 23 March 2018

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 was a comprehensive, announced inspection. It took place on 8 March 2018. We gave the service 48 hours’ notice of the inspection visit because the service was a small care home for younger adults who are often out during the day. We needed to be sure that they would be in.

The inspection team included one adult social care inspector.

Prior to the inspection, we looked at previous inspection reports. We also reviewed the information we held about the service and notifications we had received. A notification is information about important events, which the service is required to send us by law. We used information the provider sent us in the Provider Information Return. This is information we require providers to send us at least once annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make.

None of the people using the service were able to provide verbal feedback about their experience of life there. During the inspection, we used different methods to give us an insight into people’s experiences. These methods included both formal and informal observation throughout the inspection. We used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a specific way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not comment directly on their experiences. We were able to observe how staff interacted with people to see how care was provided.

We met two of the four people using the service; two we saw briefly. We spoke with four current people’s family members and a prospective family member, three staff and the registered manager.

We reviewed three people’s care records. We sampled information from on-line staff files, saw minutes of a staff meeting, and looked at quality monitoring information relating to the management of the service and safety records. Feedback was received from two health care professionals and we saw other feedback from questionnaires the service had received during 2017.

Updated 23 March 2018

Ashleigh House is a care home. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and we looked at both during this inspection. Four people with a learning disability and physical disability were receiving residential care at Ashleigh House. They were between the ages of 33 and 53. Ashleigh House has been adapted to provide accommodation over two floors, with a vertical lift between floors.

The care service has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen.

At the last inspection, the service was rated Good.

At this inspection, we found the service remained Good.

Why the service is rated Good.

People were protected by the arrangements for their safety. This included recruitment, staffing, preventing infection, maintaining the premises, assessing, and managing risks. Staff knew how to protect people from abuse and discrimination.

Arrangements were in place should there be an emergency which required evacuation of the premises. The positioning of a ‘grab bag’, kept in a first floor office, appeared unwise, to both the inspector and the registered manager. We recommend that the provider reviews the arrangements for an emergency situation.

Arrangements for managing medicines on people’s behalf included clear, detailed records, protocols, and safe administration. The current storage arrangements for medicines, which required specialist storage, did not meet current legislation. However, the provider had identified this and was making the required changes.

Staff were skilled, confident and effective in the care and support they provided. A health care professional said, “I can’t really fault them.”

People’s legal rights were understood and upheld with as little restriction as possible.

Dietary challenges were being met so that people received sufficient, nutritious food and fluids to their liking, and in a safe way.

People’s health care needs were understood and met. Staff had recognised, and responded quickly, when a person was ill and needed medical attention. Routine health care needs were met through regular contact with external health care professionals.

People received a caring service, which recognised their need for privacy and respect. All engagements between staff and people using the service were friendly, relaxed and made people feel valued and cared for. People’s family members said (their family member) was happy at Ashleigh House and staff were friendly.

People were supported to live active and full lives according to their preference and ability. The premises were adapted so that people had equal access to shared areas and there were plans for further improvement. People’s rooms were individual to them. One family member said, “The room is lovely."

Support plans were detailed and reviewed regularly. People’s needs were understood through effective communication, in which staff were skilled.

Staff were supervised and supported. Audits and checks were carried out in-house and through the provider, so any problem could be identified and rectified.

The registered manager understood and met their legal responsibilities.