CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Ashchurch View
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks such as falls, choking, malnutrition and pressure ulcers were assessed, and staff had guidance to manage them.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training, supervision and support needed to meet people's needs. The home worked with healthcare professionals and followed guidance about nutrition, oral care and other health needs.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives described staff as kind, caring and compassionate. Inspectors saw staff treat people with dignity, respect their choices and encourage independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans included people's life histories, relationships, hobbies and preferences. People had personalised activities, family involvement and support to maintain relationships and take part in community activities.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The registered manager and provider had systems to monitor quality, investigate incidents and act on shortfalls. Staff, people and relatives described a more open and caring culture.
What inspectors found, January 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements sustained since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 3 and 5 December 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practices, suitable training, kind care and personalised support. People were supported to take part in activities and maintain relationships.
The previous inspection, published in January 2019, had rated the home Requires Improvement and found two breaches. Inspectors said the improvements made since then had been embedded and sustained.
More consistent staffing
Recruitment had improved continuity of care, and the home was no longer relying on agency staff to maintain safe staffing levels.
“The service were no longer using agency staff to maintain safe staffing levels.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included important information about people's lives and preferences. People and relatives were involved in creating and reviewing them.
“Each person's care plans contained information about their life, including their relationships, hobbies and preferences.” from the report
Activities and community links
People had activities matched to their needs and interests. The home had also developed links with the local community and supported people to go out.
“People had access to activities which were tailored to their needs and preferences.” from the report
Quality monitoring
Regular audits and meetings were used to review care, incidents, medicines and safety. Inspectors found that actions were identified when shortfalls were found.
“The registered manager and provider had comprehensive systems to monitor and improve the quality of care people received” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you maintain the staffing levels and continuity of care described in the report?
- 02How often will my relative's care plan be reviewed, especially if their health or needs change?
- 03Which activities would suit my relative's interests, abilities and communication needs?
- 04How will you involve our family in care decisions and respond if we raise a concern?
- 05If relevant, how will you record and follow my relative's wishes about end of life care?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions; the previous ratings were Requires Improvement in Safe, Effective, Responsive and Well-led, and Good in Caring. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 January 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.
What inspectors found, January 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and good dignity, but staffing, activities, training and management needed to improve.
This was an unannounced inspection over three days in November 2018. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care records, staff records and management information, and observed care.
The home was clean and safe, and staff generally treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People received support with food, drink, health needs and end of life care.
However, staffing pressures meant people sometimes waited for help or spent long periods without meaningful activity or reassurance. Staff did not always receive enough training, supervision or communication. The home had improvement plans, but inspectors needed more time to see whether they worked.
Kind and respectful care
People were treated with kindness and compassion. Staff protected privacy and supported people's choices.
“We observed when care staff assisted people with their needs they did so in a kind and compassionate manner.” from the report
Dignity and privacy
Staff carried out personal care privately and respected people's rooms, individuality and independence.
“People living at Ashchurch View felt they were treated with dignity and respect and their wishes were respected.” from the report
Health and nutrition
People had access to health professionals and received diets designed around risks such as choking or malnutrition.
“People had access to health and social care professionals.” from the report
End of life support
End of life plans recorded people's wishes and anticipatory medicines were available when needed.
“People were supported at the end of their life and to maintain their comfort.” from the report
Clean and safe environment
The home was clean, maintained and checked for safety. Staff followed infection control procedures.
“People could be assured the home was clean and free from infection.” from the report
Staffing and engagement
seriousThere were periods when too few staff were available. People sometimes went for long periods without support, stimulation or reassurance.
“People did not always have access to activities and stimulation which were personalised to their individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Staff training and supervision
needs fixingStaff did not always receive the training, supervision and appraisal needed to develop their skills and meet people's needs.
“Care and nursing staff did not always have access to the training and support they needed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Personalised activities
needs fixingLife histories and interests had been recorded but did not always guide activity plans. Records did not show regular individual or group activities for some people.
“There were no documented evidence or record of individual one to one activities available to people within the home since this time.” from the report
- 01How many permanent care and nursing staff are now in place, and how often are agency staff used?
- 02What has changed to make sure people receive regular one-to-one and group activities based on their interests and abilities?
- 03How do you check that all staff, including agency nurses, give and record medicines correctly?
- 04Are staff now receiving regular supervision, appraisals and the training needed for people's care needs?
- 05How are concerns from relatives recorded, answered and followed up, and how often is management present in the home?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection of all five key questions, with ratings compared with the previous Requires Improvement inspection in September 2017. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 January 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.
Every inspection of Ashchurch View
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 13 September 2012.
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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.