CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ashford House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe. Inspectors found suitable staffing, individual risk assessments, safe medicines systems, fire checks and appropriate recruitment checks.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff received training and supervision. The home worked with mental health and other healthcare professionals, supported health appointments and updated care plans when advice was given.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were observed treating people with kindness and respect. People were involved in care decisions and supported to maintain their privacy, dignity and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's individual preferences, communication methods, religious needs and interests. People were supported with activities, community access and complaints.
- Well-led?
- Good
- There was a registered manager and a governance system covering audits, complaints, incidents and the environment. People, relatives and staff were asked for their views.
What inspectors found, August 2018
Ashford House was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some agency staff used to cover permanent staff shortages.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 27 March 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, staffing, recruitment, training, the environment and quality checks.
The home supported up to 10 people with mental illnesses and learning disabilities. Nine people were living there at the inspection. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines support, individual risk assessments and appropriate checks on new staff.
People were supported to make choices, stay independent and maintain their health. Staff were described and observed as kind and respectful. Care plans reflected people's preferences, communication needs, interests and beliefs.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The rating stayed the same as at the previous inspection. This means inspectors found no serious risks or concerns in the evidence they reviewed.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors that the home felt safe. Staff understood how to protect people from abuse and respond to risks.
“People told us that the service made them feel safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff respected people's privacy, dignity, choices and independence. Inspectors observed care that matched people's support plans.
“Staff were observed being kind to people and respecting their privacy, dignity and independence.” from the report
Personalised support
The home adapted support to people's communication methods, beliefs, routines and health needs. People were supported to take part in activities and community life.
“People's preferences and choices were reflected in their care plans.” from the report
Good links with health services
Staff supported people to attend appointments and worked with mental health teams and other healthcare professionals. Advice was recorded and used to update care.
“The service worked with other providers such as mental health teams to ensure that people's care was delivered effectively in line with their needs.” from the report
Complaints were followed up
People knew how to complain. The complaints process was accessible, and recorded complaints had been answered within the home's stated timescales.
“There was an accessible complaints process in place which had been followed when concerns were raised.” from the report
Use of agency staff
minorThe home used agency staff to cover gaps in its permanent staffing. The report says these agency staff had worked at the home before, but families may wish to ask how continuity is maintained.
“The service used agency staff to cover the short falls in permanent staff however agency staff were the same staff who had worked at the service before.” from the report
Some authorisations were still pending
needs fixingApplications for Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations had been made, but the home was waiting for the local authority to decide them. The home kept a tracking document for their progress.
“Applications had been made however the service was awaiting authorisations from the local authority and had a tracking document in place to ensure they were aware what stage of the process each one was at.” from the report
- 01How many permanent staff usually work each shift, and when are agency staff used?
- 02How will you support my relative's particular mental health, communication and independence needs?
- 03What is the current position of any outstanding Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications?
- 04How often will my relative's care plan be reviewed, and how will relatives be involved?
- 05How are complaints recorded, investigated and used to improve the service?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions and the care provided as well as the home environment. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 August 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.
Every inspection of Ashford House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- August 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,020 to £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.