CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ashdene House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe, risks were assessed and monitored, and staff were recruited safely. Medicines, equipment, the environment and emergency evacuation arrangements were checked.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's health and social care needs were assessed and reviewed. Staff received relevant training and worked with health professionals, although one induction record was incomplete and some training needed renewal.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were patient, kind and compassionate. They respected people's privacy and dignity, understood how people communicated and encouraged independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were written with people and those who knew them best, and were reviewed when needs changed. People were supported with activities, holidays, beliefs and end-of-life wishes.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Leadership was visible and people, relatives and staff felt the home was well-led. Audits and action plans were used to monitor quality and make improvements.
What inspectors found, July 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some staff records and training still needing attention.
This was an unannounced inspection on 26 June 2018. One inspector looked around the home and grounds, spoke with all the people living there, four staff members and the registered manager, and reviewed care plans, staff files, safety checks and quality records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from harm, received medicines safely, and were supported by staff who knew them well. People were treated with kindness, involved in their care and supported to make choices and remain independent.
The home had improved since the May 2017 inspection, when it was rated Requires Improvement and had breached a regulation. The environment had been redecorated and maintained better, and the earlier breach had been met. Inspectors still identified some areas for improvement, including incomplete induction records and some training that was overdue for renewal.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff treating people with patience and compassion. Staff knew people's histories, preferences and communication methods.
“Staff were patient, kind, compassionate and caring. Their actions showed a genuine concern for people's well-being.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's backgrounds, preferences, independence and important relationships. People and relatives were involved in planning and reviewing care.
“Each person had a care plan which staff referred to so they could provide the right care and support.” from the report
Improved environment
The home had been redecorated, with replacement flooring, carpets and furniture. The garden had also been improved and was being used by people.
“At this inspection the service had been redecorated, carpets and flooring had been replaced and new furniture had been purchased” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make daily choices, take reasonable risks and spend time independently. Some people had keys to their rooms or the front door.
“People were supported in the least restrictive way possible.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to follow their interests, attend religious events, go on trips and take holidays. The home also supported gardening and social activities.
“People were encouraged to keep busy and to take part in group activities as well as follow their own interests.” from the report
Incomplete induction record
needs fixingOne new staff member's induction record had not been fully updated. The registered manager agreed this needed improvement.
“The records for one person who had recently completed their induction had not been fully updated” from the report
Some training renewals overdue
needs fixingSome staff training courses were overdue for renewal. The manager had reminded staff and discussed this in supervision meetings.
“The registered manager had recently written to some staff to remind them some of their training courses were overdue to be refreshed” from the report
Easy-read plans still being updated
minorSome care plans were in an easy-to-read format, but others were still being updated with pictures.
“Some care plans had been written in an easy to read way with pictures and others were in the process of being updated to this format.” from the report
- 01Which staff training courses were overdue, and have all of them now been renewed?
- 02How do you check that every new staff member's induction record is complete?
- 03When will the remaining care plans be changed into an easy-to-read format with pictures?
- 04What environmental improvements are still planned, and how are people involved in choosing them?
- 05How will you involve my relative and our family in reviewing their care plan?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, including the premises, care, records, staff arrangements and quality systems, and all five ratings were assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 July 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.
What inspectors found, June 2017
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but the home was not clean enough and its improvement checks were not reliable.
This was an unannounced inspection on 2 May 2017. The inspector met the people living there, observed care, spoke with staff and the registered manager, and reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records and quality checks.
People generally felt safe and staff provided enough support. Medicines were managed safely. Staff were trained, caring and responsive to individual needs. People were supported with health care, food, activities, family contact and complaints.
The home was not consistently clean or well maintained. Carpets, furniture and some bedrooms were dirty, and parts of the building and gardens needed work. Audits did not always identify these problems or set clear deadlines for fixing them.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Effective, caring and responsive were rated Good. Safe and well-led were rated Requires Improvement. The previous inspection in October 2014 found the regulations were met.
Kind staff
Staff knew people well and communicated patiently and compassionately. Inspectors saw relaxed, positive relationships.
“Staff knew people well and spoke with them in a patient, kind and compassionate way.” from the report
Individual support
People and families helped plan care. Care plans reflected individual needs, preferences and changes in health.
“Each person had a care plan that was tailored to meet their individual needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. Staff were trained and checked as competent before administering them.
“There were appropriate arrangements in place for obtaining, recording, administering and disposing of prescribed medicines, in line with best practice.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were supported to enjoy activities, holidays, outings and religious or cultural interests. Family visits had no time restrictions.
“People were supported to follow their interests and take part in social activities.” from the report
Cleanliness and repairs
seriousSome carpets, bedrooms and furniture were dirty. Parts of the building needed decorating or repair, and the gardens were overgrown.
“People did not live in a service that was clean and hygienic.” from the report
Missed environmental problems
needs fixingSome problems found by inspectors had not been identified by the registered manager. A list of 25 areas needing attention had no agreed completion times.
“Some of the shortfalls highlighted during our inspection had not been identified by the registered manager.” from the report
Incomplete safeguarding training
needs fixingMost staff had completed safeguarding training, but five bank staff and a maintenance worker still needed to complete it.
“There were five bank staff and a maintenance person who needed to complete this training.” from the report
Missing maintenance records
needs fixingThe maintenance book used for staff to record problems had gone missing. The manager said it would be put back immediately.
“Maintenance staff told us they no longer had a maintenance book for staff to note any issues because it had gone missing.” from the report
Handling of people's money
needs fixingAn audit had found that small amounts of some people's money were missing. This was reported and procedures were changed, followed by a further financial audit.
“The registered manager had recently found through an audit that small amounts of some people's monies had gone missing.” from the report
- 01What cleaning, repair and redecoration work has been completed since the inspection, and what still needs to be done?
- 02What deadlines are now set for completing maintenance work, including the 25 areas identified by the deputy manager?
- 03How do you check that environmental problems are identified promptly and followed through?
- 04Have all bank staff and maintenance staff completed safeguarding training?
- 05What changes were made after money went missing, and how are people's finances now checked?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including observations of care and reviews of four care plans, medicines records and quality records. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 June 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 Ashdene House
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2018Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 3 December 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
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.