6 and 7 October 2015
During a routine inspection
This inspection took place on 6 October 2015 and was unannounced. This meant the provider did not know we would be visiting. A second day of inspection took place on 7 October 2015 and was announced. The service was last inspected on 30 October 2013. At that time it met all of the standards that we inspected against.
Ashlea Grange is a care home providing personal care for up to 40 older people. It is a purpose built care home spread over two floors, though only the ground floor was used for accommodation. At the time of the inspection 10 people were using the service, 9 of whom were living with dementia.
There was a registered manager in place. 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.
Medicine records were not always filled in accurately, which meant it was not always possible to tell if medicines had been administered. Staff did not receive regular supervisions or appraisals, but felt confident to raise issues with the manager. Training the provider deemed as essential for staff to complete was not up to date.
You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report
People’s relatives thought the service was safe. Detailed risk assessments were carried out, which were used to plan and deliver support in a safe way. The service operated a robust recruitment process, and during induction new staff were equipped with training to allow them to safely support people.
Staffing levels were sufficient to allow staff to spend meaningful time with people, and to deliver support in a patient and unhurried way. Emergency plans for people and the service minimised the risk of harm to people in emergency situations.
The service protected people’s rights by ensuring they were not restricted unnecessarily unless it was in their best interests. The service worked collaboratively with the people’s families to determine people’s best interests, but had not always submitted Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications where it was thought people could be deprived of their liberty.
People were supported to maintain a healthy diet, and to access external healthcare when necessary. The service was involved in a number of collaborative projects with external healthcare professionals for the benefit of people.
Staff supported people kindly and with compassion. Relatives were positive about the care people received, and felt involved in it.
People had their own keyworker which helped to provide a continuity of care. Care plans were detailed and personalised, which meant people received the care and support they wanted. Plans were regularly reviewed to ensure they reflected people’s current needs, and relatives felt involved in this process. The service was pro-active in obtaining the views of people living with dementia.
People had access to a wide range of activities that were tailored to their abilities, and which promoted a homely atmosphere. Relatives felt confident that they could make a complaint if they needed to.
The registered manager regularly assessed all aspects of the service to ensure that quality was maintained. Staff felt supported by the registered manager. The provider also undertook quality checks. Staff did not always feel supported by the provider.