Archived: Ashgrove Care Home

Ashgrove Care Home is registered to provide accommodation with personal care for up to a maximum of 10 older people. There were two people living at the home during our inspection, visit however shortly following this the provider confirmed that both people had moved out of the home.

The provider is registered as an individual and therefore is not required by law to have a separate registered manager. 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.

At our last inspection on 5 and 6 June 2017, we found the provider was in breach of the Regulations of the Health and Social Care 2008 (Regulated Activities) 2014. We gave the service an overall rating of requires improvement. The breach related to the provider’s failure to ensure good governance. We asked the provider to send us an action plan to tell us how they would make these improvements by the 7 September 2017. Despite several contacts with the provider requesting their action plan we did not receive it prior to this inspection.

The service was not well-led. The provider lacked knowledge and understanding of the care regulations and their requirement to comply with them. There was a lack of effective systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service and to drive improvements.

There was a reduction in staff employed at the home and the provider was considering extending their service user band to include people living with dementia. We were not confident that staffing arrangements in place would support changes in people’s needs or the needs of new people who may wish to live in the home.

The provider was unable to demonstrate what, if any, learning they took from accidents to prevent them from happening again.

There was a lack of effective systems in place to identify and monitor staff training needs. Not all staff had received training that was relevant to their roles and responsibilities.

The provider had not sought advice on person-centred care planning as recommended. We found that people’s care records did not record their involvement in care planning and reviews. However, people felt staff knew them and their preferences well.

The provider had not conspicuously displayed their ratings from the latest inspection at the home as they are required to do by law.

People were satisfied with the choice and quality of food available to them. Staff were aware of people’s dietary needs and monitored what people ate and drank to ensure people’s nutritional needs were met.

People were supported to take their medicines when they needed to. Staff monitored people’s health and arranged healthcare appointments as necessary.

Staff sought people’s consent before supporting them and enabled them to make their own decisions.

People found staff to be kind and patient and enjoyed positive working relationships with them. People were given choice and felt listened to. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and encouraged them to maintain their independence.

People had not had cause to complain but felt confident and able to raise concerns should the need arise.

Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to any concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

Ashgrove is registered to provide accommodation with personal care for up to a maximum of 10 older people. There were two people living at the home during our inspection and one person was staying at the home on a temporary basis.

The provider is registered as an individual and therefore is not required by law to have a separate registered manager. 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.

The home was last inspected on 14 and 16 November 2016 where we gave it an overall rating of requires improvement. At the last inspection we asked the provider to take action to make improvements to their governance systems. We asked the provider to send us an action plan to tell us how they would make these improvements.

At this inspection we found that the provider had not achieved all the required improvements since out last inspection and we found further concerns.

There was ineffective leadership in the service. The provider’s governance systems remained chaotic and the provider lacked an understanding of their legal responsibilities. They had not made the improvements they told us they would. There was a lack of formal quality assurance systems to drive improvements in the service.

The provider had not ensured accidents were appropriately reported and analysed to prevent reoccurrence.The provider had not completed improvements to the home they said they were going to do or responded to all the maintenance issues reported by staff.

The provider did not have effective systems for monitoring staff training and development needs. Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s support needs but the provider was unable to demonstrate how they would meet changes in people’s needs. Staff felt supported by the provider and their colleagues.

People were supported by regular staff who knew them and their needs well. However, the information in care plans and risk assessment was generic and required improvement.

Risks associated with people’s needs were routinely assessed, monitored and reviewed. People felt safe living at the home.

People received their medicine as prescribed and accurate records were maintained. Staff monitored people’s health and wellbeing and arranged health care appointments as necessary.

People were happy with the quality and quantity of food provided. People’s nutritional needs were assessed and catered for. Where there were concerns about people’s weight loss or what they ate and drank these were discussed with the relevant health professionals.

Staff sought people’s consent before supporting them and provided them with information in a way they understood to enable them to make decisions for themselves.

People felt staff were patient and kind. People were treated with dignity and respect and supported to remain as independent as possible.

People felt comfortable to approach staff if they had any concerns or complaints.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

Ashgrove is registered to provide accommodation with personal care for up to a maximum of 10 older people. There were five people living at the home during our inspection.

The provider is registered as an individual and therefore is not required by law to have a separate registered manager. 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.

The home was last inspected on 17 December 2015 where we gave it an overall rating of requires improvement. At the last inspection we asked the provider to take action to make improvements to how they supported people with their nutritional needs and to make improvements to the leadership of the service. We asked the provider to send us an action plan to tell us how they would make these improvements. At this inspection we found that some improvements had been made but that the provider had failed to make improvements to their governance and quality assurance systems.

The service lacked effective leadership. The governance systems in place were chaotic, many policies were out of date and did not reflect current best practice. The provider had not fulfilled their regulatory responsibilities as they had not notified us of significant events that they are required to tell us about by law. There was a lack of formal quality assurance systems to drive improvements in the service. Concerns we had identified at our last inspection had not been fully addressed and similar concerns were found at this inspection.

The provider did not have effective systems for monitoring staff training and development needs. Staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people’s support needs Staff felt well supported by the provider and their colleagues.

People felt safe living at the home as staff monitored their wellbeing and were always available to support them when needed. There were enough staff to support people’s health and social needs.

People were protected from harm and abuse by staff who were able to recognise the signs of abuse and knew how to report concerns. Staff were aware of the risks to people and how to minimise them.

People received their medicines as prescribed and had access to health care professional as and when required.

Staff sought people’s consent before supporting them and respected their right to decline support.

People enjoyed the food they received and were encouraged to follow healthy diets. Snacks and drinks were made readily available to people. People’s medicines were managed safely and they were supported to see health care professionals as needed.

People were treated with kindness and consideration. People were given choices and felt listened to. Staff promoted people’s dignity and supported people to maintain their independence. People were supported to keep in contact with friends and relatives who were important to them.

People were involved in developing their care plans. Staff knew people well and were able to recognise changes in their needs.

People were able to choose how they spent their time and were supported to do things they enjoyed doing. People felt confident and able to raise concerns should the need arise.

You can see what action we asked the provider to take at the back of the full report