Ashby Court

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

At this assessment we did not assess all quality statements within this key question. The overall rating for this key question remains good based on the findings at the last inspection. People told us they felt safe and knew how to raise concerns if they needed to. Staff could explain how they would raise concerns if they had any including reporting to external agencies, although we were told they had not had any reason to do this. People living at Ashby Court were mostly independent and did not need to rely on staff to go out. Staffing levels were adequate to ensure people’s needs were met. Although staff could tell us how they would mitigate risk, some risks had not been identified by the provider and risk assessments were not detailed enough to provide staff with all the information they required to keep people safe. Incidents were minimal with only 1 incident recorded at the time of assessment.

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.

People told us they felt safe and were confident they could talk to staff if they needed to. A person told us, “I feel safe here, there’s a good staff team.” People told us staff discussed with them about how to keep themselves safe and said they also looked out for each other by raising concerns with staff if they were worried about people they lived with. People told us how their medicines to help with distress had reduced since living at Ashby Court with some people not requiring medicine at all anymore.

Staff were aware of their responsibility to safeguard people and who to contact in the event of any safeguarding concerns. They told us how they could raise concerns with the management team and knew how to raise concerns externally if required. Staff explained that incidents were managed without the use of any physical interventions or restrictive practice.

We observed people relaxed and comfortable with staff. There was a friendly atmosphere of mutual respect where people had open conversations with staff they clearly knew well.

The manager knew how to raise safeguarding concerns with the local authority. At the time of the assessment there had only been 1 incident which had not required a referral and follow up actions had been taken. There was an understanding of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which was used in the best interest of people.

People felt staff knew how to keep them safe and told us staff discussed with them how to keep themselves safe. A person told us they walked into the village by themselves and would tell staff when they were going to be back. They explained how staff had helped them understand risks like not talking to people they did not know and raising concerns if they felt uncomfortable. Other people told us how they were supported to manage their own finances or administer their own medicines. A person told us, “I [administer] my own medicine. I didn’t used to, but I’m trusted here. It made me feel great.”

Staff were able to describe how they managed risks to people within the service. They told us how they supported people to build confidence when going out in the community and assessed people’s competence with road safety and understanding of ‘stranger danger’. Staff explained how people often went out together or with staff if they didn’t feel confident which enabled them to still go out and enjoy themselves.

We observed safe care being delivered to people. Staff encouraged people to be as independent as possible by prompting people to complete tasks and only supporting when required.

Systems and processes were not always effective in ensuring that all risks had been appropriately identified or assessed. We saw from reading people’s care plans that potential risks had not always been considered or assessed to ensure staff had appropriate information to keep them safe. The provider had safely assessed people to self-administer medicine and manage their own finances which had clear positive outcomes for people’s self-esteem and self-worth.

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

People told us there were enough staff and explained that staff were always there if they needed them including at night. People told us there was a good staff team.

Staff felt there were enough staff to meet people’s needs. They told us how they were included in creation of their shifts patterns to ensure it suited the routines of the people they supported. Staff told us they were supported in their roles and had regular supervisions. They told us the registered manager was accessible and supportive. The registered manager told us the home did not use agency workers or share staff from other locations as people required the consistency of a regular and familiar staff team.

We observed safe staffing levels throughout the day. People’s needs were met whilst staff were also available to spend time talking with people on a personal level. Staff were able to effectively communicate with people, including a person who used Makaton which uses ‘key word signing’ to aid a person to communicate.

Staff were recruited through robust processes. Staff also underwent a Disclosure and Barring Service check prior to starting work. This helped ensure the provider employed only staff suitable to work in this type of service. Staff had completed training in line with their role which was up to date.

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.