CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ashford Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Ashford Lodge was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care and improvements since the previous inspection, but some medicine and cleaning records needed attention.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 4 July 2023. Two inspectors met everyone living at the home, observed care, spoke with staff and relatives, and reviewed care, risk and recruitment records.
The home supports up to eight autistic people and people with a learning disability. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with dignity, involved in decisions, supported to communicate, and helped to take part in activities and community life.
The overall rating and all five question ratings were Good. The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement, but inspectors found improvements and said it was no longer breaking the regulations identified at the last inspection.
There were still areas to improve. Staff had not recorded whether medicines given when needed had worked, and some areas needed deep cleaning. There was also no registered manager in post, although a manager was running the home and had applied to register.
Choice and independence
Staff helped people make choices and develop everyday skills. Support was designed to give people as much control and freedom as possible.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans reflected people's individual needs, goals, health and communication preferences. People and relatives were involved in reviewing support.
“People had care and support plans that were personalised, holistic, strengths-based and reflected their needs and aspirations” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw patient and respectful interactions. Staff understood how people communicated and recognised changes in their behaviour or wellbeing.
“Throughout the inspection interactions between staff and the people they supported were kind and caring.” from the report
Activities and community life
People were supported to take part in regular activities of their choice, develop skills and maintain contact with family and friends.
“People were supported to participate in their chosen social and leisure interests on a regular basis.” from the report
Recording the effect of as-needed medicines
needs fixingStaff recorded when as-needed medicines were given but not whether they worked effectively. The manager agreed that these records should be completed.
“However, staff had not recorded whether a PRN medicine had worked effectively.” from the report
Deep cleaning
needs fixingSome areas needed deep cleaning when inspectors visited. Extra daily checks were introduced during the inspection, and cleaning work was already in progress.
“Staff had noted some areas of the service needed deep cleaning. This was in progress at the time of the inspection.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to record whether as-needed medicines have worked effectively?
- 02Have all the areas identified for deep cleaning now been completed, and how are they checked?
- 03What is the progress of the manager's application to register with CQC?
- 04How many permanent and agency staff currently work at the home, and how do you make sure one-to-one support is covered?
- 05Which staff still need refresher training, and when will this be completed?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering all five questions, including infection prevention and control; it checked improvements required after the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 July 2023 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 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, knowledgeable staff but gaps in person-centred care, records and service oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection on 10 January 2022. Inspectors spoke with relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, staffing, training and management records. They also checked infection prevention and control.
Relatives said people were safe and praised staff as patient, committed and caring. Staff knew people well, managed medicines safely, supported healthcare appointments and respected people's privacy and dignity.
However, people did not always have enough planned activities, community opportunities or support to build independence. Some care records and risk assessments were out of date or inaccurate. The provider had also failed to act on some problems found at the previous inspection and had not always notified CQC about important events.
The home was rated Requires Improvement in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The provider was told to take action, and CQC said it would continue to monitor the home.
Staff knew people well
Staff understood people's preferences and how they communicated, including non-verbal communication. Relatives and professionals reported positively about staff relationships with people.
“Staff knew people well and consistently described people's needs and preferences too us.” from the report
Safe medicines support
Medicines were ordered, stored and recorded safely. Staff were trained and understood guidance on reducing unnecessary medicines.
“People's medicines were managed safely. There were systems in place to order, record and store medicines safely.” from the report
Healthcare support
Staff worked with health professionals and adapted appointments to reduce people's anxiety. People received regular health checks and treatment.
“Staff identified any changes in people's health care needs quickly and contacted health care professionals for advice.” from the report
Privacy and dignity
People had privacy in their rooms and when seeing relatives. Staff supported people's dignity and followed preferences about personal care.
“Staff treated people with dignity and respect and supported people to maintain their dignity.” from the report
Positive change in leadership
Relatives and professionals said the home had improved since the registered manager began working there. The manager had identified problems and started an action plan.
“Everyone we spoke with told us the service had improved since registered manager had begun working there.” from the report
Limited activities and community access
needs fixingPeople had limited social, leisure and domestic activities. Some could not go out because staffing or funding was not available, and activities for poor weather had not been planned.
“People's participation in social, leisure and domestic activities at home and in their local community were limited.” from the report
Care plans and records were inaccurate
seriousSome care plans had not been reviewed and contained incorrect information. This could make it harder for new or agency staff to provide consistent support.
“Records about the care people needed or had received were not always complete.” from the report
People's independence was not fully supported
seriousPeople were not always helped to set meaningful goals, develop skills or take part in household tasks. This was a breach of the person-centred care regulation.
“People who wanted had not been supported to plan goals which were meaningful to them.” from the report
Daily routines were not always clear
needs fixingSome people became anxious when they did not know what would happen next. Timetables and other communication tools were not consistently available or up to date.
“Some people did not have the structure they needed to understand what would happen when to enable them to remain calm.” from the report
Quality checks had not fixed earlier problems
seriousThe provider's audits and action plans had not brought about enough improvement. Problems from the previous inspection were still present.
“Some shortfalls at the service identified at our September 2020 inspection remained unaddressed.” from the report
Important events were not always reported
seriousThe provider had not always notified CQC about safeguarding concerns and DoLS decisions. This prevented CQC from checking that the right action had been taken.
“The provider had not submitted notifications to the CQC as required.” from the report
- 01What daily timetable and activity plan is now in place for my relative, including activities in wet or cold weather?
- 02How will you support my relative to set meaningful goals and develop independence, including taking part in household tasks?
- 03How do you check that care plans and risk assessments are current, accurate and understood by agency staff?
- 04What action has been completed to address the shortfalls identified at the September 2020 inspection?
- 05How do you make sure safeguarding concerns, DoLS decisions and other important events are reported to CQC on time?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions and infection prevention and control; it was the first inspection under the home's new legal entity, while the previous rating was published on 10 October 2020. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 March 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.
Every inspection of Ashford Lodge
5 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2022Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 September 2020.
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.