CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ashefields Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured about infection prevention and control, including visitors, protective equipment, testing, admissions, outbreak planning and visiting arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not covered by this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2022
Ashefields Residential Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and an organised home.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 27 January 2022. Inspectors focused on infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements, and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care.
Inspectors found examples of good practice. Visitors received clear information, staff used the required protective equipment correctly, and the home took part in regular COVID-19 testing. Plans were in place for a possible future outbreak.
The home was calm and staff were well organised during the visit. The provider was also meeting the requirement for non-exempt staff and visiting professionals to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
The service was inspected but not rated. This report therefore gives findings about infection control and visiting arrangements, rather than a full quality rating.
Visitor infection control
Visitors were given clear information and instructions when entering the home. Inspectors found that the provider was following best practice guidance to reduce the spread of COVID-19.
“Information and instructions for visitors were clearly displayed and explained in person on entry to the home.” from the report
Correct use of PPE
Inspectors saw staff wearing the required protective equipment correctly while supporting people.
“We observed staff wearing the required PPE correctly whilst supporting people at the home.” from the report
Testing and outbreak planning
The provider took part in regular testing and kept staff updated about changes to COVID-19 guidance. Plans were in place for a possible future outbreak.
“The provider participated in regular COVID-19 testing programmes and ensured staff were kept up to date with guidance” from the report
Calm and organised home
The home was calm during the inspection. Staff were organised and supported people to attend activities.
“During our visit, the home was calm, and staff were well organised.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are you currently managing any staffing pressures linked to COVID-19, and what effect have they had on people living here?
- 02What are the current arrangements for visits, and how are visitors told about infection control requirements?
- 03What would happen if there were a COVID-19 outbreak in the home?
- 04How often are people living here and staff tested when required?
- 05How do you check that staff and visiting professionals who are not exempt meet the COVID-19 vaccination requirement?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 February 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 2019
Ashefields Residential Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with limited bathing choices noted.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 03 December 2019. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting health professional. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, staff files and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines procedures, detailed risk assessments and care plans that were updated when people's needs changed.
People and relatives described kind, respectful care. Staff understood people's communication, health needs and preferences. The home offered activities and worked with health professionals. One limitation was that some people could not choose a shower instead of a bath because of the bathing facilities.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as respectful. Inspectors saw staff offering reassurance and responding kindly when people were upset.
“We observed staff supporting people with empathy and kindness.” from the report
Good understanding of people
Staff knew how people communicated their wishes, including when they could not speak. Care plans recorded people's preferences and support needs.
“Staff knew people very well and they were able to tell us how people communicated their wishes when they could not express them verbally.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Medicines were administered using safe procedures, with staff training and regular checks.
“Observations of medicine administration confirmed staff were following safe procedures.” from the report
Improved effectiveness
The Effective rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. Inspectors found that earlier concerns about decision-making capacity had been addressed.
“At the last inspection improvement were needed to ensure peoples capacity was specific to each decision. This had been addressed by the registered manager.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could take part in activities inside and outside the home. Staff also supported family contact, religious preferences and community involvement.
“People had access to a wide range of activities, provided both internally and in the community.” from the report
Limited bathing choice
minorThere was only one hoisted bath on the ground floor. Some people could not choose a shower instead of a bath, although no one raised concerns about this during the inspection.
“This meant some people could not make a choice if they wanted to have a shower rather than a bath.” from the report
- 01How many bathing options are available now for people who need hoisting or other assistance?
- 02How are people's activity preferences recorded, and how often are activities provided?
- 03How often are care plans reviewed, and how are families told when a person's needs change?
- 04How are medicines audits and staff competency checks carried out now?
- 05How are any conditions attached to a person's liberty authorisation monitored and reviewed?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions; the Effective rating improved from Requires Improvement and the other ratings remained Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 December 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 Ashefields Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Ashefields Residential Care Home →
- December 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Ashefields Residential Care Home →
- March 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“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.