Archived: Ashby Court Limited

Updated 16 May 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 comprehensive inspection took place on 25 April 2018 and it was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice, because the service provides a domiciliary care service and we needed to ensure someone was available to facilitate the inspection.

One inspector conducted the inspection.

Prior to the inspection, we asked the provider to complete a Provider Information return (PIR). The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make . We took this information in to account when inspecting.

We planned for the inspection using information from the PIR and other information we held about the service. This included statutory notifications. A statutory notification is information about important events; the provider is required to send us by law. We also contacted the local authority for any information they had on the service .

During the inspection, we visited and spoke with two people that received personal care from the service in their own flats. We spoke with two care staff, the duty manager, and the registered manager.

We reviewed the care records of three people using the service and three staff recruitment files. We also reviewed records relating to the management and quality monitoring of the service, such as quality audits, rotas and training information.

Updated 16 May 2018

This inspection took on 25 April 2018. At the last inspection in March 2016, the service was rated ‘Good’.

At this inspection we found the service remained good. We found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and on- going 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.

Ashby Court Limited is a sheltered housing complex which provides domiciliary care, and supports 45 older people who live in their own flats. At the time of inspection, only 4 people were receiving personal care. Not everyone using Ashby Court Limited received regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do we also take into account any wider social care provided.

Staff received safeguarding training so they knew how to recognise the signs and symptoms of abuse and how to report any concerns of abuse. Risk management plans were in place to protect and promote people’s safety. The staffing arrangements were suitable to keep people safe. The staff recruitment practices ensured staff were suitable to work with people. Where the provider took on the responsibility for the management of medicines, staff followed best practice guidelines. Staff followed infection control procedures to reduce the risks of spreading infection or illness.

The provider understood their responsibility to comply with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS), which came into force in August 2016. The AIS is a framework that makes it a legal requirement for all providers of NHS and publically funded care to ensure people with a disability or sensory loss can access and understand information they are given.

Staff received induction training when they first started work at the service. On-going refresher training ensured staff were able to provide care and support for people following current practice. Staff supervision systems ensured that staff received regular one to one supervision and appraisal of their performance.

Where the provider took on the responsibility, staff supported people to eat and drink sufficient amounts to maintain a varied and balanced diet. The staff supported people to book health appointments when required, to make sure they received continuing healthcare to meet their needs.

People were encouraged to be involved in decisions about their care and support. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff support them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice.

People had their privacy, dignity and confidentiality maintained at all times. The provider followed their complaints procedure when dealing with complaints.

People had their diverse needs assessed, they had positive relationships with staff and received care in line with best practice. Staff consistently provided people with respectful and compassionate care.

The service had a positive ethos and an open culture. The registered manager was a visible role model in the service. People told us that they had confidence in the manager’s ability to provide consistently high quality managerial oversight and leadership.