CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ashby House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staffing, medicines systems and incident learning were found to be safe, but some risk records were still being reviewed and some premises surfaces were harder to keep clean.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received suitable training, food and health support. The manager was updating care plans and health action plans, including higher-risk areas.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were patient, kind and respectful. They understood people's communication styles and supported privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was tailored to people's needs, communication methods, interests and goals. People could raise complaints, and the one recorded complaint had been answered promptly.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The new manager had clear oversight and was making improvements. People, relatives and staff were asked for feedback, and management worked with outside professionals.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with records and premises improvements still being completed.
This was an unannounced inspection on 23 February 2022. One inspector spoke with two people, five relatives, seven staff and an independent advocate. They also observed care and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home was supporting seven people, with places for seven. All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, kind care, support for choice and independence, and good communication with health professionals.
The new manager had identified work still needed. Some care and risk records were being reviewed and updated. Refurbishment was planned for the kitchen, flooring and damaged surfaces because some areas were harder to keep clean.
Choice and independence
Staff supported people to make everyday choices, pursue interests and build daily living skills. Care focused on what people could do.
“Staff supported people to have the maximum possible choice, control and independence, be independent and they had control over their own lives.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm, patient interactions. Staff respected people's privacy, dignity, communication needs and personal preferences.
“People received kind and compassionate care. Staff protected and respected people's privacy and dignity.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff adapted support to each person's needs, mood, communication style and interests. People were supported to take part in activities and work towards their goals.
“Care is very tailored to the person, their likes and mood that day can all depend too.” from the report
Strong new management
The new manager was visible, approachable and acted on feedback. They had identified improvements and had a clear understanding of the service.
“Although the manager had been in post for a short amount of time, we found they had a clear oversight of the service.” from the report
Good staffing and partnership working
Inspectors found enough staff to provide care and one-to-one support. Staff worked with health and social care professionals when people needed further help.
“The service had enough staff, including for one-to-one support for people to take part in activities and visits how and when they wanted.” from the report
Care and risk records being updated
needs fixingThe manager was reviewing records because some risk assessments and care plans were not yet fully up to date. This included higher-risk health support areas.
“The manager was updating people's care records at the time of the inspection to ensure they remained accurately in place.” from the report
Premises needing refurbishment
needs fixingSome kitchen cupboards, carpets and high-touch surfaces needed improvement because they were harder to keep clean. Plans were in place, but inspectors said they would check the work later.
“The kitchen cupboards were wooden and hard to keep clean and some carpets required replacing.” from the report
Medicines training not complete for all staff
needs fixingNot all support staff were supporting people with medicines at the time of inspection. The new manager planned to provide the required training.
“At the time of the inspection not all staff supported people with their medicines.” from the report
- 01Have all care plans and risk assessments been reviewed and updated, including diabetes support and health action plans?
- 02Have all support staff who need to give medicines completed their training and competency checks?
- 03What refurbishment has been completed in the kitchen, carpets and damaged high-touch surfaces?
- 04How are people involved in setting and reviewing their goals, activities and daily choices?
- 05How has the new manager's registration with the CQC progressed?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; it was the first inspection of this newly registered service. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 March 2022 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, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control arrangements were safe.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 2 December 2020. It checked infection prevention and control arrangements during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors were assured that the home was using protective equipment safely, following shielding and social distancing rules, arranging testing, and managing infection risks. They also found the home clean and well maintained.
The home had a visiting pod, cleaning arrangements between visits and video calls when visits were restricted. Staff were supported with their wellbeing.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the visit did not give an overall quality rating or full ratings for all five areas.
Safer visits
The home used a visiting pod and had procedures for booking visits and cleaning the area between them.
“The visiting policy contained details of the booking system and the procedures followed to thoroughly clean the area between visits.” from the report
Keeping people connected
When visits were restricted, the home used video calls to help people stay in contact with relatives.
“When visits had been restricted, technology such as, video calls were used to ensure people continued to have contact with their loved ones.” from the report
Activities adapted
The home found creative ways to support people's interests during shielding, including recreating a bus inside the home.
“Creative ways to keep people occupied had been implemented.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the environment clean and well maintained, with extra cleaning to reduce the risk of infection spreading.
“The environment was well maintained and clean. Additional cleaning had been implemented to lower the risk of cross transmission.” from the report
Staff wellbeing
Staff received support during periods of anxiety, including signposting to mental health services when needed.
“Staff were supported by the registered manager and provider during periods of anxiety to monitor their wellbeing and signposted to mental health services where needed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What is the home's current visiting policy, and how is the visiting area cleaned between visits?
- 02How does the home currently manage infection risks, including protective equipment, testing and outbreak prevention?
- 03What is the most recent full CQC rating for the home, since this inspection was not rated?
- 04How are people's individual activities and contact with relatives supported if visits become restricted?
- 05What support is currently available to staff who experience anxiety or other wellbeing concerns?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control practices only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 December 2020 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 Ashby House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2019GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 June 2020.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Staffordshire
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 £1,230 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.