CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ash-lee
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staffing, medicines, infection control and most risk management were good, although one bed rail risk assessment and an electrical inspection were completed after the visit.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the skills and support needed to care for people. The home met people's nutritional and healthcare needs and followed the principles of consent and least restrictive care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. Staff involved people in decisions and supported them to maintain their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised around people's needs, preferences and communication. People were supported with activities, relationships and complaints, and no complaints had been received since the previous inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open and inclusive culture. Management used audits, meetings and feedback to monitor quality and involve people in improvements.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with two safety checks completed after the visit.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 26 September 2019. Two inspectors spoke with four people and two staff members. They reviewed care records, medicines records, recruitment information and the home's safety and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly, supported to make choices and helped to become more independent.
Inspectors found two checks that needed attention. Risks linked to one person's bed rails had not been assessed, and the electrical installation had not been inspected within the required timeframe. The home provided evidence after the visit that both matters had been dealt with.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff knew how to recognise and report abuse.
“People told us they felt safe. One person said, "I'm in safe hands".” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff respected privacy and dignity, treated people compassionately and supported them to make their own choices.
“People were treated with respect, compassion and kindness, by staff who promoted equality and valued diversity.” from the report
Independence and choice
People were supported to do things for themselves, make decisions and take part in everyday activities and trips.
“Staff promoted people's independence. Staff supported people to make choices and to do what they could for themselves.” from the report
Skilled staff and healthcare support
Staff had suitable training and supervision. The home worked with healthcare professionals and used their guidance in care plans.
“Staff were competent, knowledgeable and had completed training which gave them the skills they needed to carry out their role effectively.” from the report
Open management
People and staff were involved in meetings and decisions about food, activities and the home. Quality checks were used to identify improvements.
“The registered manager had created a culture that was open, inclusive and put people at the heart of the service.” from the report
Bed rail risk assessment
seriousThe risks linked to one person's use of bed rails had not been assessed when inspectors visited. The home later confirmed that a risk assessment had been introduced.
“However, we found the registered manager had not assessed the risks associated with one person's use of bed rails.” from the report
Electrical safety check
seriousThe electrical installation had not been inspected within the required timeframe. The home later provided documents showing that the inspection had been completed.
“The registered manager ensured equipment was inspected and serviced when it needed to be, with the exception of the electrical installation, which had not been inspected within the required timeframe.” from the report
- 01How often are bed rail risks assessed and reviewed for each person who uses them?
- 02When was the latest electrical installation inspection, and are any follow-up actions still outstanding?
- 03How are people involved in choosing activities, meals and changes to their care plans?
- 04How do staff support each person's independence rather than doing tasks for them?
- 05How are people's communication needs recorded and shared with other services when needed?
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 December 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, April 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with earlier legal problems corrected.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 22 February 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, staff, the manager and a relative. They observed care, checked parts of the home, and reviewed care records, medicines, staffing, training and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines procedures, suitable training, clean surroundings and care plans that were kept up to date.
People were treated kindly and were involved in decisions about their care. They had access to healthcare, meals and drinks, activities, visitors and a complaints process.
At the previous comprehensive inspection in January 2016, two legal requirements had not been met. A focused inspection in July 2016 found the improvements had been made, and this inspection found the improvements had continued. The overall rating was therefore increased to Good.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient and staff had time to support people without rushing.
“We found sufficient staffing levels were in place to provide support people required.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were observed treating people with kindness, patience, compassion and respect. They appeared to know people well.
“We saw staff put this into practice during our inspection. We observed many positive and caring interactions between staff and people who lived at the home.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences, routines, communication and social needs. Plans were reviewed when people's circumstances changed.
“The provider had gathered information about people's preferences about how their care was delivered, which was added into written plans of care.” from the report
Safe medicines
Trained staff were observed giving medicines after gaining consent and signing records immediately. Medicine storage and audits were also found to be safe.
“We found medication procedures at the home were safe. Staff responsible for the administration of medicines had received training to ensure they had the competency and skills required.” from the report
Active management
The manager used audits, meetings and surveys to check the quality of care and involve people, relatives and staff.
“The registered manager used a system of audits and checks to monitor, maintain and improve the quality of the service provided.” from the report
Earlier legal failures
needs fixingThe previous comprehensive inspection found failures to protect people from malnutrition and to notify CQC about significant events. These issues were reported as corrected by the July 2016 focused inspection and remained corrected at this inspection.
“This was because the provider had failed to ensure people were protected against the risk of malnutrition and they had failed to notify us of significant events at the home.” from the report
- 01How will you keep my relative's care plan and risk assessments updated if their needs change?
- 02How many staff are normally on duty for each shift, and what happens if someone is absent?
- 03How will you support my relative with food, drinks and any special diet?
- 04What activities are available, and how are they adapted to each person's interests and needs?
- 05How can I raise a concern, and how will you keep me informed about the outcome?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service and covered all five CQC questions; the report also describes earlier focused checks on improvements. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 April 2017 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Ash-lee
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 July 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.