CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ashgrange House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that individual risks were assessed and managed, staff were safely recruited and trained, and medicines were generally stored and administered safely. A fire drill had not yet taken place with the new staff team, and some infection-control distancing was difficult.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was carried forward.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was carried forward.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was carried forward.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management and quality monitoring had been inconsistent. Improvements had started, including new action plans and more regular contact with relatives, but they had not yet been fully embedded.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found that leadership and communication needed improvement while care and safety were generally good.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 6 May 2021. It followed concerns about meaningful activities and staff attitudes. The inspector spent time with five residents, spoke with staff and relatives, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe. Inspectors found that risks were assessed, staff understood residents' needs, medicines were generally managed safely, and infection control procedures were mostly followed. Staff were also seen supporting residents kindly and offering choices about their day.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. There had been several management changes, high staff turnover and poor communication with relatives. Quality checks had only recently been restarted, so the provider needed more time to show that improvements were consistent.
The overall rating remained Good, as ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. Those areas were not inspected during this visit.
Individual support
Staff knew residents well, respected their choices and supported them using their preferred communication methods. Inspectors saw people being treated with kindness and affection.
“We observed people being offered choices throughout the day and being encouraged to make their own decisions about how they wanted to spend their day.” from the report
Risk management
Care plans contained specific information about people's risks and needs. Staff understood how to respond to behaviours that may challenge and to health conditions such as diabetes.
“Risks to people were managed. People had risk assessments that were specific to them and provided staff with information on how to support that person.” from the report
Infection control
Staff used protective equipment correctly and the home had procedures for visiting, testing and cleaning. The home had an infection-control lead and staff worked only at this home.
“We were assured that the provider was using personal protective equipment (PPE) effectively and safely.” from the report
Activities returning
Activities had started to increase after lockdown restrictions. Plans were being developed around residents' interests, including going out, walks and exercise sessions.
“Activities were increasing at the home. Individual activity plans were in the process of being created with people.” from the report
Leadership and checks
needs fixingThe home did not have a registered manager and there had been several management changes. Quality checks had only recently restarted and needed more time to become consistent.
“Quality assurance systems had not been completed consistently over the last year.” from the report
Communication with relatives
needs fixingRelatives said communication had been difficult and intermittent. They had not been told about the COVID-19 outbreak or positive test results, although the current manager had begun weekly contact.
“Relatives had not been informed that there had been an outbreak of COVID-19 at the service and were not informed if their loved one had received a positive test for COVID-19.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingSome medicine administration records were incomplete. Guidance also did not explain how staff should recognise when some residents who could not communicate needed as-required medicines.
“We identified that some MARs (Medication administration records) had not been fully completed.” from the report
Fire drill
needs fixingA fire drill had not taken place since new staff had started. The manager said this would be done immediately.
“We discussed with the manager that a fire drill had not taken place since new staff had begun working at the service.” from the report
- 01Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and when will a permanent registered manager be appointed?
- 02How often are quality checks now completed, and can the home show what has improved since the inspection?
- 03How will relatives be kept informed about outbreaks, test results and their loved one's wellbeing?
- 04How do staff record and review as-required medicines for residents who cannot communicate when they need them?
- 05Has the fire drill for the current staff team now taken place, and what was learned from it?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; Effective, Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 May 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, October 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with improvements since the previous Requires Improvement rating.
Inspectors visited on 30 September and 1 October 2019. One inspector reviewed records, care plans, medicines, staff files, complaints, accidents, audits and the condition of the home. They spoke with people, visitors, staff and health professionals, and observed care.
The home supported six people with learning disabilities, some of whom also had mental health needs. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly and involved in decisions about their care. Staff understood people's communication methods, preferences and risks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Safe and Well-led had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection. Effective, Caring and Responsive remained Good.
Kind and knowledgeable staff
Staff knew people well and understood their needs, choices and preferred ways of communicating.
“People received support from staff who were kind and caring.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make daily choices, change their minds and develop practical skills.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives” from the report
Personalised activities
People had activity plans based on their interests, with flexibility to change plans or choose different activities.
“People were given the opportunity to take part in a variety of meaningful activities throughout the day.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff for people's assessed needs and found that medicines records showed medicines had been given as prescribed.
“There were enough staff working each shift to ensure people's needs were met in line with their care plan.” from the report
Improved records and oversight
Records had improved since the previous inspection, including mental capacity assessments and guidance for staff. Audits were used to identify and address improvements.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made to people's records.” from the report
Management transition
minorA new manager had been appointed and was still being supported into the role. Families may want to check who is now responsible for the home and how the transition went.
“The registered manager worked across the two services and continued to support the new manager into their role.” from the report
- 01Who is currently managing the home, and has the new manager completed registration with CQC?
- 02How would staff support my relative's preferred communication method, including signs, symbols or pictures if needed?
- 03How are risks, including behaviours that may challenge, mobility and going out, assessed and reviewed?
- 04How would my relative be supported to choose activities, change plans and build independence?
- 05How are medicines checked, recorded and reviewed, including medicines given when needed?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC areas; the previous overall rating was Requires Improvement, while Effective, Caring and Responsive had previously been Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 October 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 Ashgrange House
5 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- May 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 November 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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East 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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.