CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Ashford House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors checked safeguarding and infection prevention and control. They found people were kept safe, risks were managed, and infection control measures were in place.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected at this visit. No areas of concern were identified in the information held by CQC.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected at this visit. No areas of concern were identified in the information held by CQC.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected at this visit. No areas of concern were identified in the information held by CQC.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected at this visit. No areas of concern were identified in the information held by CQC.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Ashford House was inspected but not rated; inspectors found people were kept safe and infection controls were in place.
This was a targeted, announced inspection on 31 March 2021. It checked safeguarding management and infection prevention and control after concerns about safeguarding referrals and a recent COVID-19 outbreak.
Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from these concerns. They found safeguarding referrals were made promptly, risks were assessed, and staff had safeguarding training.
The home had measures to reduce infection risks. These included visitor checks, testing, personal protective equipment, extra cleaning, social distancing and separate entrances.
The service was inspected but not rated at this visit. Its previous overall rating was Good, published on 19 March 2020. The other key question ratings were carried forward because they were not inspected.
Safeguarding procedures
Safeguarding referrals were made promptly and the home worked openly with social care professionals and CQC.
“Safeguarding referrals had been made to us in a timely way and the manager was keen to work with social care partners in an open, transparent way.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home used PPE safely, supported testing and managed infection risks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Contact during lockdown
The home arranged extra video and phone calls when visits were not possible, and used a booking system when visits resumed.
“To ensure people's mental wellbeing during periods of "lockdown" where visits were not possible, additional video and phone calls for all residents were organised.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you record and follow up safeguarding concerns now?
- 02How are individual risk assessments updated when a person's needs or mobility change?
- 03What infection prevention measures are currently used for visitors, staff and new admissions?
- 04How do you support residents to keep in touch with relatives if visits are restricted?
- 05What was done after the recent COVID-19 outbreak to reduce the risk of another outbreak?
This was a targeted inspection of specific safeguarding and infection prevention and control concerns under Safe; the other key questions were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 April 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
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but some care records were hard to read and did not fully describe dementia support.
This was an unannounced inspection over three days. One inspector spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional. They observed care and reviewed care, medicine, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People said they felt safe and that staff were kind. Inspectors saw prompt support, safe moving and handling, personalised care, good food and activities, and respectful treatment.
There were some record-keeping weaknesses. Handwritten care records were not always easy to read. Records did not always describe the dementia support and informal activities people received. The provider was piloting online records and said it would improve this.
The previous inspection had found problems with staffing and moving and handling. Inspectors found these risks had been reduced. The overall Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, while the Safe rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
Safe staffing and moving
The home had acted on earlier concerns about staffing and moving people. Inspectors saw people receiving support when they needed it and staff using safe techniques.
“At this inspection we found that all staff had received training in safe moving and handling.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans and risk assessments were individual to each person and regularly updated. Staff knew people's needs, preferences and communication requirements.
“People's care plans and risk assessments were up to date and personalised.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff positively. Inspectors saw staff protect privacy, ask for consent and support independence.
“Staff were caring and treated people with dignity and respect.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People had a daily programme of activities, including music, exercise, reminiscence and games. The home also supported visits and contact with family and friends.
“A daily programme of activities was provided.” from the report
Clean and safe environment
The home was clean and refurbishment work was managed so it did not negatively affect people's wellbeing. Safety checks and maintenance arrangements were in place.
“The home was clean and free from odour.” from the report
Handwritten records
needs fixingCare plans and daily records were not always easy to read. The provider was piloting an online system to improve access and monitoring.
“Care plans and care records were handwritten and not always easy to read.” from the report
Dementia support not fully recorded
needs fixingCare records did not always explain how dementia affected people's behaviour or the specific support and reminiscence activities they received.
“However, people's care records did not always reflect the supports that people living with dementia received.” from the report
Activities records incomplete
minorStaff did not always record informal activities, such as individual reminiscence and discussions. The manager said this would be discussed with staff.
“Activities records in place but staff had not always recorded informal activities that they had supported” from the report
- 01Are care plans now kept online, and how do you check that they are easy to read and up to date?
- 02How do you record each person's dementia-related needs, behaviour and preferred reminiscence activities?
- 03How are informal activities, such as one-to-one conversations and reminiscence, recorded?
- 04How do you monitor night staffing levels and arrange extra staff if people's needs change?
- 05How are people and their families involved in reviewing care plans and recording changing preferences?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, the care provided and the premises; the previous overall rating was Good, while Safe had previously been Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 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 Ashford House
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- February 2015Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 February 2011.
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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.