CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Ashcroft Nursing Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected by clear risk assessments, safe medicines systems, safeguarding procedures and environmental checks. The inspection also found that not all staff wore masks correctly and visiting arrangements had not been updated to current guidance.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was used to calculate the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were detailed and personalised, and staff understood people's preferences and communication needs. People had choices about food, activities and how they spent their time.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management systems did not reliably identify or fix shortfalls. Recruitment checks and agency staff profiles were incomplete, and feedback arrangements did not show that people's views had been acted on.
What inspectors found, December 2022
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the home was not always well-led.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 18 October 2022. Inspectors spoke with people and relatives, observed care, spoke with staff and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
People were generally safe and received personalised care. Inspectors found clear risk assessments, safe medicines management, suitable care plans and staff who knew people's needs. People and relatives mostly described staff as kind, caring and helpful.
The main weaknesses were in leadership and checking quality. Recruitment records were incomplete, agency staff information was out of date, and audits had not found these problems. Feedback from people and relatives was not always acted on.
The overall rating stayed Good, as did Safe and Responsive. Well-led fell from Good to Requires Improvement. Effective and Caring were not inspected at this visit, so their previous ratings carried over into the overall rating.
People felt safe
People and relatives generally said they felt safe. Inspectors found safeguarding systems and risk assessments were in place.
“People and their relatives told us they felt safe living in Ashcroft Nursing Home.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans recorded people's preferences, life histories, communication needs and choices. Staff, including agency staff, showed good knowledge of the people they supported.
“Care plans were detailed and personalised and reflected peoples' preferences in all areas.” from the report
Kind staff
People and relatives described staff positively, and inspectors saw staff communicating effectively with people.
“People received care from staff who knew them well and people and relatives used words to describe the staff, such as kind, caring, lovely, helpful and friendly.” from the report
Safe medicines management
Medicines were stored securely, records were accurate and nurses administering medicines had been trained and assessed as competent.
“Medicines were managed safely in line with national guidance.” from the report
End of life support
The home could provide end of life care, with plans recording people's wishes and links with health professionals.
“The service was able to provide end of life care and support which enabled people to remain in the service if their needs increased and not have to move to a new service.” from the report
Recruitment records
seriousSome recruitment files were incomplete. Employment gaps had not been explored, and some files did not show that an interview had taken place. Agency staff profiles were also out of date and incomplete.
“We were not assured the provider followed safe recruitment practices.” from the report
Quality checks were not strong enough
needs fixingAudits did not identify important problems with recruitment and agency staff records. Some immediate actions were taken, but improvements were not yet fully embedded.
“Audits on the service had been completed but quality assurance processes were not robust enough to identify shortfalls and take appropriate action.” from the report
Feedback was not always acted on
needs fixingMeetings did not show how many people attended or whether their views led to action. There was no way to gather views from people cared for in bed.
“There was no evidence that feedback had been acted on and there was no mechanism for obtaining views from people who were cared for in bed.” from the report
Communication with relatives
minorMeetings with relatives had stopped during COVID-19 restrictions and had not restarted after restrictions were lifted. Some relatives said communication could be better.
“Although these restrictions had been lifted, meetings had not restarted.” from the report
PPE and visiting arrangements
needs fixingNot all staff wore masks correctly. Visiting was not restricted, but relatives still had to make appointments because arrangements had not been updated to current guidance.
“Not all staff wore their masks correctly over their mouth and nose.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure every recruitment file includes full employment history checks and evidence of an interview?
- 02How do you check that agency staff have the skills and competence needed for their roles?
- 03How are audits now finding and correcting problems before they affect care?
- 04How can people who are cared for in bed give their views, and how will they see what action was taken?
- 05Have meetings with relatives restarted, and how can relatives be kept informed about care and changes?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over into the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 December 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, July 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with improvements since the previous inspection.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 10 June 2021. One inspector spoke with people, staff and relatives, and reviewed medicines, care plans, staff records and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from risks, received their medicines safely, and were supported by trained staff.
People were treated with dignity and respect. Their choices, communication needs, food preferences, activities and end of life wishes were recorded and supported. The home was clean, visits were supported safely, and complaints were investigated.
The previous inspection rated the service Requires Improvement and found breaches of regulations. This inspection found enough improvement had been made, and the provider was no longer in breach of those regulations.
Improved safety systems
The home had improved how it assessed risks, monitored fluids, protected skin and learned from accidents and incidents.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were stored and recorded safely. Staff training and competency checks had been completed, and records matched medicine stocks.
“At this inspection, all medicines were managed safely and stored according to appropriate guidelines.” from the report
Kind and individual care
Staff knew people's preferences and used personalised approaches to help people feel calm, respected and supported.
“At this inspection, we observed people being treated with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Personalised communication and activities
The home used pictorial, audio and translated information. Activities reflected people's interests, and relatives were supported to keep in touch.
“People took part in activities they enjoyed.” from the report
Stair lift not in use
minorA stair lift remained out of use in one area. Inspectors were told that people were not using that area because it was being used as a COVID-19 isolation unit, but adaptations would be needed before continuous use.
“The stair lift in one area of the service remained out of use, however, no people were using that area.” from the report
- 01If my relative needed the area with the stair lift, what access arrangements and adaptations would be provided?
- 02How do you monitor daily fluid intake, and how quickly do you act when a person's target is not met?
- 03How many agency staff are currently used, and how do you make sure they know each person's needs?
- 04How are care plans reviewed with relatives when a person's needs, preferences or communication change?
- 05What are the current arrangements for visits and infection control if there is an infection outbreak?
This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 July 2021 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 Ashcroft Nursing Home
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- December 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2021GoodSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- October 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 August 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.