Askham Hall

We found the following examples of good practice.

Staff followed the requirements in the use of PPE and had received training in infection control, taking off and putting on of their personal protective equipment and handwashing.

The service was clean and hygienic. Cleaning schedules had been reviewed and enhanced and frequent cleaning was carried out throughout the day.

Relatives had also been supported to safely visit their loved ones in exceptional circumstances in line with the national guidance. For example, when a person was approaching the end of their life. Visitors wore full PPE (personal protective equipment) throughout the duration of their visit.

Askham Hall is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to 26 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection.

Askham Hall accommodates 26 people over two floors. Each floor has shared facilities such as lounges, dining areas and kitchens as well as single bedrooms.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People who lived at Askham Hall received care from a staff team who knew each person well. The staff were all very happy in their roles and ensuring people got the best care. People’s views were respected, and they were involved in everything that happened in the service. People were happy living there and relatives trusted the staff team to look after their family members. One relative said, “The support we have received for our [family member] has been second to none. We couldn’t have wished for better.”

Staff understood the risks to people and the measures in place to keep them safe. Systems were in place to manage people's medicines safely and to reduce the risks associated with the spread of infection.

Sufficient numbers of staff were employed to meet people's needs. Staff received training that gave them the necessary skills and knowledge to carry out their roles and meet the specific needs of people using the service.

Staff delivered care and support that was personalised. Staff were kind, caring and motivated and people and their relatives were complimentary about the care provided. Staff respected people’s privacy, dignity and independence and encouraged people to lead their life in the way they wanted to.

People were supported to maintain good health. Staff made referrals to health professionals when required. People were supported to have maximum choice and control over their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People had access to food and drink based on their individual choice and preferences. People had access to a wide range of activities that reflected their specific needs and interests.

Care plans guided staff to provide support that met people's needs in line with their preferences.

Systems were in place to monitor the service, which ensured that people's risks were mitigated, and lessons were learnt when things went wrong. There was an open culture within the service, where people and staff could approach the registered manager who acted on concerns raised to make improvements to people's care. A relative told us, “I cannot fault the care that is provided by the staff here.”

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was good (published 3 August 2017).

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

This inspection was carried out on 14 and 22 June 2017 and was unannounced.

At our last inspection the service was rated overall as good, but with improvements required in the responsive domain. At this inspection we found the service remained good overall. There had been improvements relating to the question ‘are services at this location responsive?. However, we found that improvements were required in the way medicines were managed.

The service was not always safe because we could not be sure that people received their medicines safely and as they were prescribed. Potential risks to people were assessed and minimised and staff understood their responsibility to protect people from avoidable harm. There were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs and staff recruitment ensured that only staff suitable to work at this home were employed.

The service continued to be effective because people received care from staff who had the skills, knowledge, training and support to ensure they did their job well. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. Staff obtained consent from people when they offered care. People’s nutritional needs were met and people were supported to have enough to eat and drink. A range of healthcare professionals visited the home to support people to maintain good health.

The service continued to be caring because staff showed they genuinely cared about people and treated them with kindness and compassion. Staff had good relationships with people, treated people with respect and supported them to maintain their privacy, dignity and independence. Visitors were welcomed and also had warm, friendly relationships with the staff.

The service was responsive because care plans were personalised and gave staff guidance on the care each person needed. The range of meaningful activities was improving so that people had more to do to keep them occupied. People and their relatives knew who to speak to if they were not happy with the service and were confident their complaints would be addressed.

The service continued to be well-led because there was a registered manager in post who was approachable, provided good leadership and understood their responsibilities to everyone involved with the home. People, staff and visitors to the home were encouraged to put forward their views about the service being provided. Suggestions for improvement were listened to and acted upon when possible. The quality of the care was monitored by a range of audits that were carried out regularly.

Further information is in the detailed findings below.

We observed that medication was safely managed and administered to people when they required their medicines.

The home was appropriately clean and people were not at risk of infection.

A comprehensive complaints system and open policy for people to speak to the manager ensured that any concerns had been expressed and listened to.