CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ashchurch House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found appropriate safeguarding procedures, enough staff, suitable risk assessments and safe medicines arrangements, although one medicine record had a gap caused by a recording error.
- Effective?
- Good
- People had access to healthcare, food, drinks and trained staff. Inspectors found limited meal choices, concerns about suitability for some dietary needs and some food in the fridge without clear preparation labels.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff supported people patiently and respectfully and promoted privacy, dignity, independence and choice. Care files did not show how cultural or spiritual practices were supported.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support plans were personalised, regularly reviewed and understood by staff. People had community activities, but inspectors did not see meaningful activities taking place inside the home and relatives wanted more variety.
- Well-led?
- Good
- People, relatives and staff described the management as approachable and supportive. Records were accurate and quality checks were in place to monitor the service.
What inspectors found, February 2018
Ashchurch House was rated Good in every area, with kind and personalised care but some limits on meal choice and activities.
Inspectors made unannounced visits on 18 and 22 September 2017. They spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files, safety checks and quality audits.
The home was rated Good overall and Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, suitable risk assessments and good access to health professionals. Staff were trained and understood consent and safeguarding.
People were treated with kindness, respect and dignity. Care plans were personalised and kept up to date. The report also identified areas to improve, including wider food choices, clearer food labelling, better recording of cultural and spiritual preferences, and more meaningful activities inside the home.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff understood safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures, and inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs.
“People told us they felt safe. There were robust safeguarding and whistleblowing procedures in place.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff used calm, respectful communication and supported people with kindness. They promoted privacy, dignity, independence and choice.
“We observed staff speaking with people patiently and respectfully.” from the report
Personalised support
Support plans described people's needs, preferences and how staff should respond. Staff knew people well and updated records when needs changed.
“The support plans we reviewed were up to date and enabled staff to have a good understanding of each person's needs and how they wanted to receive their care and support.” from the report
Good staff support
Staff received training, supervision, appraisals and induction. They understood the Mental Capacity Act and how to seek consent.
“Staff received up-to-date training and appropriate support through supervision and appraisal meetings.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff described the management as approachable. The home used meetings, surveys and audits to gather views and identify improvements.
“Quality assurance systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service.” from the report
Limited food choices
needs fixingMenus did not always offer a wide choice and may not have been suitable for some medical dietary needs. Inspectors recommended getting advice about involving people in diet choices.
“We recommend that the service seek advice and guidance from a reputable source, about supporting people to make choices about their diet.” from the report
Food labelling
needs fixingSome food in the fridge did not have labels, or the labels did not clearly show when it had been prepared. Inspectors said this could mean people received food unsuitable for consumption.
“This meant staff were not following the provider's processes which may place people at risk of receiving foods that may be unsuitable for consumption.” from the report
Cultural and spiritual choices
minorCare records did not explain how people were supported to take part in cultural or spiritual practices. Inspectors made a recommendation about this.
“We recommend the service seek advice and guidance from a reputable source, about supporting people to express their cultural or spiritual practices.” from the report
Activities inside the home
needs fixingPeople had community activities, but inspectors did not see meaningful activities taking place inside the home. Relatives wanted more variety, including art and relaxation activities.
“During the inspection we did not see meaningful activities taking place within the service.” from the report
Communal areas needing updates
minorSome lounge furniture was damaged and the first-floor décor needed updating. Improvements had started, but further furniture replacement was planned.
“The lounge area had armchairs that had damaged upholstery.” from the report
- 01What wider meal choices are now available, including choices for people with medical dietary needs?
- 02How do you check that prepared food is labelled with the correct time and date?
- 03How are people now involved in decisions about cultural, spiritual and religious activities?
- 04What meaningful activities are offered inside the home for people who do not want to go out?
- 05Was the planned furniture replacement completed, and what other refurbishment work remains?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and resulting in ratings for each one. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 February 2018 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 Ashchurch House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 November 2010.
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 Havering
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. 81 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
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.