Ashlodge

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

People were safe at Ashlodge and protected from avoidable harm, abuse, neglect and discrimination. There was a positive safety culture in the home and people were encouraged to be as independent as possible where safe to do so. Those who lacked capacity were supported in the least restrictive way and in their best interests. People, their relatives and staff all felt comfortable to raise any concerns they may have and were confident action would be taken to address these. Some improvements were needed to recruitment and general documentation, however, the registered manager was receptive to this feedback, started making immediate changes and there was no evidence of a negative impact on people. People were supported by suitably trained staff and there were enough skilled staff to ensure people’s safety.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Learning culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Safe systems, pathways and transitions during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

Safeguarding policies were in place and the registered manager was in the process of reviewing this to make it more robust. The register manager and staff were aware of their responsibilities if concerns or accident and incidents occurred. They were reminded about the importance of reporting concerns where required to the CQC. Processes were in place to monitor and review people’s capacity. This included applying for deprivation of liberty safeguards (DoLS) where some restrictions were in place for safety. For example, there was a locked door to the front of the service. People were supported in the least restrictive way.

Staff were attentive and understood people as individuals. They recognised that people living at Ashlodge were vulnerable and needed to be protected. Staff were able to demonstrate a good understanding of different types of abuse including any risks from external influences. Staff had completed appropriate training to ensure they knew what action to take to keep people safe. External professionals spoke positively about staff. One stated, “Staff are doing as much as they can to keep people safe”.

People were safe and protected from avoidable harm. People and their relatives spoke of feeling safe at Ashlodge. One relative told us, “[Person] is happy here and I am happy she is much safer here. If [relative] stands on the sensor mat staff are there straight away”. People and relatives told us they were confident that any concerns they raised would be dealt with immediate and thoroughly. During our time at the home, we observed warm interactions between people and staff, they clearly knew each other well and people felt comfortable in staff presence.

Risk assessments were completed routinely and used to inform the care provided and reduce any risks. For example, pressure area risk assessments were completed. Where a risk was identified, measures were put in place to reduce the risk including changing a person’s position, the use of barrier creams and pressure relieving equipment. Moving and handling assessments were completed, and appropriate individual equipment was used to move people safely. It was noted that the care plans did not always fully reflect the care and support provided. For example, specific guidelines for the moving and handling equipment like hoists and sling type was not recorded in care plans. Action had been taken to minimise risks but the documentation regarding management of these could be improved. The registered manager was receptive to our feedback and began work to improve this immediately. Accidents and incidents were recorded, and staff were clear on reporting and recording these. Records confirmed these were reviewed by the registered manager with actions taken to reduce risks. For example, one person who had increasing falls was referred to the falls team.

Staff were attentive to people, and we observed warm interactions of them providing support when needed. For example, we observed people being supported to move safely with appropriate lifting equipment and with handling belts. Whilst being supported to move, people were reassured and spoken with to explain the process and how they would work together to ensure a safe transfer. Whilst moving around the home, we saw that people had suitable equipment in their rooms to support their safety. This included air mattresses on their beds when needed to reduce the risk of pressure ulcers and sensor mats on the floor to minimise falls.

Risks to people had been assessed, documented, and managed. People were encouraged to be as independent as possible with day-to-day activities, whilst maintaining their safety and risks being minimised. People and relatives spoke positively about the care at Ashlodge and felt that people were safe, and risks minimised as far as possible. People told us they were confident with the support they received, they were supported by enough staff who knew them well and were able to do what they wished.

Staff understood how to reduce any risks for people. For example, they talked about the use of sensor mats so they were alerted to people who may need help. Staff had completed training to minimise risks, this included moving and handling and fire safety. Staff knew people well and demonstrated a good knowledge of individual needs. This included how to support someone in the event of a fire. People had personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) in place. Staff described how they would keep people safe when they became anxious and upset, including moving them to a quiet area and giving individual time and beverages as distraction.

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

During our visit we observed a suitable number of staff on shift to support people safely. This included a member of housekeeping staff to complete cleaning tasks as needed. Staff were seen to be attentive and responding to people’s needs in a timely way. Interactions between staff and people were meaningful and did not appear to be rushed. People who preferred to spend time in their own rooms were checked regularly by staff throughout the day.

Staff told us that there were enough staff on both day and night to look after people safely in a way that was personalised to them. Staff confirmed that staffing levels allowed them to safely support people with their independence without a need to be rushed. It also enabled them to support them to undertake activities that they wished to do, such as going for a walk. Regular training had been completed and staff told us this was relevant to their role and helped them fulfil it effectively. Some staff members were undertaking additional training under NVQ level 3. They were given opportunities to develop and increase their knowledge. Staff felt well supported and happy in their roles, they spoke positively about supervision being constructive. Staff were able to give clear details of safe practices, for example, how to correct use moving and handling equipment. Visiting professionals told us there was enough staff to look after people.

Recruitment files confirmed appropriate recruitment practice was followed. However, there were some improvements needed to ensure that these were robust. For example, references were obtained but could be made clearer regarding who had completed these. This feedback was accepted by the registered manager and action taken to address this. Records confirmed safe staffing levels were maintained. The registered manager kept this under review and adapted it depending on the needs people had. Agency staff were used occasionally and tended to be the same person. Checks of agency staff suitability to work at the home had been completed however the record keeping around this needed to improve. The registered manager addressed this whilst the inspector was on site. Staff training records confirmed staff completed a planned programme of training. Training was robust and appropriate to meet the needs of the people living at Ashlodge. Supervisions were in place in line with the provider’s policy, these were used constructively to drive improvements in the home.

People told us they felt there were enough staff to keep them safe and that they were kind and attentive. People added that staff always answered the call bells quickly when they were pressed, day or night. One person told us, “They always answer the bell. I have a mat that rings if I get out of bed, then they come and help, I could not wish for better”. People were visibly relaxed in staff presence and were not seen to be rushed when being supported.

We did not look at Infection prevention and control during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.

We did not look at Medicines optimisation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Safe.