CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ashingham House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and staff knew how to support people safely. Medicines, safeguarding, staffing and infection control were also found to be managed safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed, and staff had relevant training and supervision. People received support with healthcare, food, drink and legal consent processes.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. They understood individual communication methods, supported choices and encouraged people to be independent.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's likes, dislikes and communication needs and were reviewed monthly. People were supported with activities and trips they chose, although not all end-of-life wishes had been recorded.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found approachable leadership, regular staff support and quality checks that led to action plans. Staff and relatives gave positive feedback, but resident meetings had not been successful because of people's individual communication needs.
What inspectors found, January 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some end-of-life information still incomplete.
This was an unannounced planned inspection by one inspector on 19 December 2018. The inspector reviewed care, medicine and staff records, observed staff supporting people, and spoke with relatives and staff.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found detailed risk plans, suitable staffing, safe medicines practice, regular staff training and care that supported people's communication, choices and independence.
People were supported to take part in activities they enjoyed and to use community facilities. The home had a quality-checking system, although carpets in the main corridors and stairways were still due to be replaced, and not all end-of-life wishes had been recorded.
Personalised care
The home provided person-centred care and staff knew people's individual needs, preferences and ways of communicating.
“The service continued to provide high quality, person centred care.” from the report
Communication support
Staff used different ways to understand people who could not always express their wishes verbally. Positive behaviour support plans were put into practice.
“Staff understood people's communication needs and had worked with people to provide positive behaviour support, to understand what people were trying to communicate.” from the report
Independence
People were supported to make choices, prepare drinks and snacks, help with housework and learn new skills.
“People were supported to be as independent as possible and learn new skills.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could choose activities such as swimming and shopping, and the home invited local people to celebrations.
“People were supported to take part in various activities that they enjoyed.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Inspectors found that medicines were stored, given and disposed of safely, with staff training and competency checks.
“Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely. Medicines records confirmed people had received their medicines when prescribed.” from the report
End-of-life wishes
needs fixingThe home had asked relatives about people's end-of-life wishes, but not all relatives had replied. This meant not every person's wishes had been recorded.
“The registered manager recognised that people's end of life choices needed to be recorded.” from the report
Carpet replacement
minorCarpets in the main corridors and stairways were due to be replaced. The report does not confirm that this work had been completed during the inspection.
“For example, carpets were going to be replaced in the main corridors and stairways, the registered manager will inform us when this is completed.” from the report
Resident meetings
minorResident meetings had not worked successfully because people had individual communication needs. People could attend staff meetings if they wished, but this may not give everyone a direct forum.
“Resident meetings had been tried but these had not been successful as people had individual communication needs, however, people did attend the staff meetings if they wanted.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure each person's end-of-life wishes are recorded when they cannot communicate them verbally?
- 02Have the carpets in the main corridors and stairways now been replaced?
- 03How can residents express views, raise concerns and take part in decisions if resident meetings are not successful?
- 04What communication methods would you use for my relative's specific needs?
- 05How do you check that staff and agency staff consistently follow each person's positive behaviour support plan?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality of the care home. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 January 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 Ashingham House
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- January 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 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
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.