CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ashfield (Skipton)
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured about most infection-control arrangements, including screening, testing, safe admissions, social distancing and managing outbreaks. They were only somewhat assured that the infection-control policy was up to date and that PPE was being used safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good COVID-19 safety measures, but some infection-control records and PPE arrangements needed review.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 27 January 2021. It looked only at infection prevention and control measures during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found several safeguards in place. These included screening, testing, PPE, social distancing, changes to the layout, safe admissions and careful management of occupancy. Window visits and video calls were being used because of local visiting restrictions.
The home was rated "Inspected but not rated" overall and for Safe. This was not a full inspection rating of the home. Inspectors were somewhat assured that the infection-control policy was up to date and that PPE was being used safely. They recommended improvements to documentation and PPE storage and dispensing.
Safe admissions and testing
The home had systems for admitting people safely. Staff, residents and essential visitors were screened, and people using the service and staff had access to testing.
“We were assured that the provider was admitting people safely to the service.” from the report
Reduced infection risk
The home had changed its layout, managed occupancy carefully and avoided movement between units to reduce risks and footfall.
“The layout of the home had changed to encourage social distancing and minimise footfall through the service.” from the report
Keeping families informed
The provider used a monthly personalised newsletter with photographs of activities in the home. Window visits and video calls were also being used during visiting restrictions.
“The provider updated family and friends using a monthly personalised newsletter which included pictures of activities happening within the home.” from the report
Infection-control policy records
needs fixingInspectors were only somewhat assured that the infection prevention and control policy was up to date. They recommended clearer documentation of the actions taken.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
PPE arrangements
needs fixingInspectors were only somewhat assured that PPE was being used effectively and safely. They recommended that the home review how PPE was stored and dispensed.
“We recommended that the provider reviewed storage and dispensing of PPE throughout the home.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to the infection prevention and control policy since this inspection?
- 02How do you now record the actions taken to prevent and manage infections?
- 03How is PPE stored and dispensed throughout the home?
- 04How do you check that staff are using PPE effectively and safely?
- 05What visiting arrangements are currently available, including window visits and video calls?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not provide full ratings for the other areas of care. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 February 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.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Ashfield (Skipton) is rated Good overall, but Safe requires improvement because risk information and some records were not always complete.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 7 January 2020. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They also reviewed care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
People said they felt safe and received good care. Staff were kind, knew people well and supported their choices, privacy, independence, health, food and activities. The home was clean, staffing levels were safe and medicines were managed safely overall.
The main weakness was safety information. Some care plans and risk assessments did not fully explain how to manage health conditions, malnutrition risks or distress linked to dementia. Records were not always updated after incidents. The home was rated Good overall, with Good ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led, but Requires Improvement for Safe.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind. Inspectors saw staff protecting privacy and supporting people with dignity.
“Staff were kind and treated people with respect.” from the report
Enough staff
Staffing levels were monitored and inspectors found there were enough staff to support people safely.
“Staffing levels were safe.” from the report
Good activities and relationships
People took part in outings, visits and activities, and inspectors saw positive relationships between people living at the home.
“People frequently went on outings, there were photographs in albums and on display.” from the report
Improved management checks
A new annual provider audit and extra risk assessment tools had been introduced since the previous inspection. The Well-led rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
“Since the last inspection a new provider audit had been implemented which was carried out annually.” from the report
Incident records not always updated
needs fixingStaff often knew when care needed to change after an incident, but this was not always written into the care plan or risk assessment. Inspectors recommended that the provider review its accident and incident process.
“Care plans and risk assessments were not always updated following an incident.” from the report
Medicine records needed correction
needs fixingAfter a pharmacy change, some medicine records did not contain all prescribing instructions or enough space to record medicines given when needed. Records for topical creams also lacked full instructions. The home addressed these issues during the inspection.
“Recent changes to the pharmacy supplier had led to Medicine Administration Records (MAR's) not containing all of the prescriber's instructions” from the report
- 01How will you make sure each person's care plan clearly records conditions such as diabetes and risks linked to weight or malnutrition?
- 02How do you update care plans and risk assessments after an accident or incident?
- 03How do you now check that medicine records contain all prescribing instructions, including instructions for medicines given when needed and topical creams?
- 04How do staff identify what may cause distress for a person living with dementia, and what to do in response?
- 05How will the new annual audit identify and fix any remaining gaps in safety records?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care; inspectors reviewed a sample of three people's care and medicine records and two staff files. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 March 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.
Every inspection of Ashfield (Skipton)
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of North Yorkshire
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 £1,290 a week. 27 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She was always 'just present enough': attentive, available, kind and engaging, but without ever over-stepping any boundary”
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.