- Care home
Archived: Ashwood Care Home
All Inspections
11 April 2013
During a routine inspection
We had been told by the provider that the registered manager had resigned and a new manager had been appointed. The new manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in October 2012. In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.
We carried out this inspection to reassess the shortfalls we found at the June 2012 inspection. We found that improvements had been made to all areas where we had concerns.
People were supported to make choices about their lives and about the ways in which their care was provided. Care plans gave accurate information about people's care needs. Systems were in place to monitor and check on the quality of the service provided. People's views were obtained as part of the monitoring of this learning disability service.
11 December 2012
During an inspection looking at part of the service
We inspected Ashwood in June 2012 and found a number of concerns. One of these concerns we considered serious and as a result we took enforcement action against the provider and the registered manager. We issued a warning notice on 27 July 2012. The provider and the registered manager were required to achieve compliance by 27 August 2012.
We inspected Ashwood on 11 December 2012 to check the requirements of the warning notice. We did not reassess any of the other shortfalls found at the June 2012 inspection on this occasion. We will follow up on these outcomes at the next inspection. The provider told us that the registered manager had resigned and a new manager had been appointed. The new manager registered with the Care Quality Commission (CQC) in October 2012. In this report the name of a registered manager appears who was not in post and not managing the regulatory activities at this location at the time of the inspection. Their name appears because they were still a Registered Manager on our register at the time.
25 June 2012
During a routine inspection
We saw that people were relaxed and at ease with staff and within their home environment. We saw that staff interacted with people who used the service in a friendly, courteous and respectful manner.
We found that people were treated with respect and their dignity and choices had been considered by staff. There had been occasions however, where some choices had been limited because there had not been enough staff available. For example, people had not been supported to take part in external activities of their choosing.
We found that evidence was not available to show that people who used the service had been involved in making decisions about their care and treatment, or that best interest meetings had been held where people had been unable to express their views.
Staff told us they understood how to meet people's basic needs and give the support people needed. Staff confirmed they had not received the required training, supervision and appraisal to make sure that people who used the service received an appropriate standard of care to safeguard them from any unacceptable risk of harm.
We found that people who used the service may not be safeguarded from the risk of abuse, because up to date and accurate information and guidance for staff to follow was not available. Not all staff had received safeguarding training. Staff told us that they worked to make sure people felt safe and that they were supported and knew how to complain should they need to.
We last inspected Ashwood in February 2012 we found that the provider had not been compliant with regulations because some equipment had been unsafe and needed to be replaced. This equipment had been replaced and the provider had met this regulation at this inspection.
We also found when we inspected Ashwood in February 2012 that the provider had not been compliant with regulations because systems to assess and monitor the quality of the services provided were not in place. This meant that people were not protected from the risk of inappropriate care and treatment. We found that the provider had not kept the service under regular review and could not be sure that people who used the service received a quality service. The provider and the registered manager had not met this regulation. Where areas of non-compliance have been identified during inspection they are being followed up and we will report on any action when it is complete.
The provider and the registered manager were required to provide an action plan following the last inspection to detail the action they would take to ensure compliance was reached. The provider and the registered manager had failed to provide this action plan as required.
22 February 2012
During a routine inspection
As not everyone who used the service was able to speak with us we sat in communal areas observing how people were being cared for. We observed positive interactions between the staff and some of the people who lived at the home and could see by their body language and smiles that they were at ease with their surroundings. The atmosphere in Ashwood Care Home was calm and relaxed. We observed staff attending to people's needs and supporting their safety as they moved about. We did not see anyone waiting for their care needs to be met.
The one person we spoke with told us 'it's nice here' and they told us some of the things they did. We later saw them chatting happily with staff and with other people who used the service.
When we spoke with staff about the care and welfare needs of some of the people who used the service they had a good understanding of their individual needs. However the care plans and risk assessments we reviewed did not always reflect the most current needs of people. This is important in ensuring people receive the right care.
We saw staff encouraging people to remain independent and supporting them to make choices. We saw that the bedrooms were individual and contained things that were important to the person who used the service. We were also told how one person was able to keep in touch with their relatives who had moved away using 'Skype'; this allows them to see each other as well as talk through the computer.
We had some concerns with the physical environment. The downstairs bathroom in particular needs attention to ensure people remain safe when using the bath. Processes for monitoring service quality could also be improved to ensure any concerns are captured and addressed promptly.