CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ashking House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found safe staffing, recruitment, medicines management, infection control and risk management. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse, and the home learned from incidents.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected in this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected in this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected in this visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found positive leadership, regular checks on quality and safety, staff supervision and good involvement of people, relatives and staff in improving the home.
What inspectors found, July 2023
Ashking House rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care and strong management, but this was a focused inspection.
Inspectors visited the home on 5 July 2023. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff recruitment and training records, incident reports and management checks. They spoke with staff and relatives, and observed care because some people could not share their views directly.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found enough suitably trained staff, safe medicines management, suitable infection control and systems to learn from incidents. Staff knew people well and supported their choices, independence, communication and access to health care.
This inspection only looked closely at Safe and Well-led. The ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive were carried over from the previous inspection, when the overall rating was also Good.
Choice and independence
The home supported people to have choice and control, while using the least restrictive approach and acting in people's best interests.
“The model of care at Ashking House maximised people's choice, control and independence.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were securely stored, records had no gaps and staff understood how to give medicines safely, including time-critical and when-needed medicines.
“Medicines Administration Records (MAR) were completed appropriately. They were signed by staff and contained no gaps.” from the report
Consistent staff
Inspectors found enough staff with suitable skills and experience. Relatives described a stable team, and staff turnover was very low.
“There seem to be regular staff throughout the week, a stable staff team.” from the report
Positive management
The home had systems to check care, medicines, infection control and risk assessments. Managers used these checks and improvement plans to address issues.
“The service had appropriate quality assurance and auditing systems in place designed to drive improvements in performance and to maintain effective oversight.” from the report
Infection control
The home had an enhanced cleaning programme, regular infection control checks and safe arrangements for preventing and managing outbreaks.
“The management team completed regular PPE and infection control audits to ensure safe practices were being followed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you make sure each person’s choices, communication style and independence are reflected in their current care plan?
- 02How often are medicines reviewed by prescribers, and how do you check that medicine records remain complete?
- 03How do you maintain the stable staffing team, and what happens if regular staff are unavailable?
- 04What infection control checks and cleaning arrangements are currently in place?
- 05What were the findings from the last review of the Effective, Caring and Responsive areas?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; the other ratings were carried over from the previous inspection in 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 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, June 2018
Ashking House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with staffing and record-keeping issues to monitor.
This was an announced, comprehensive inspection on 30 May 2018. One inspector and an expert by experience observed care, checked records and spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals.
All five areas were rated Good: safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led. Inspectors found enough staff on duty on the day, safe medicines systems, suitable training, clean surroundings and care that respected people's choices, dignity and independence.
There were some shortcomings. Staff raised concerns about staffing levels, two medicines records had gaps, one complaint was not fully recorded, some supervision was late and some improvement actions had not been signed off. The provider said it would address these issues.
The overall Good rating stayed the same as at the previous inspection in February 2015. This shorter report says there was no evidence of serious risks or concerns.
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors saw staff use a gentle, patient approach. People were offered choices and supported with dignity and respect.
“Staff displayed a gentle and patient approach throughout the day when caring for people in the home.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans included people's needs, abilities, likes, dislikes, communication, mobility, health and social activities. They also recorded people's hopes and how staff should support them.
“Care plans were comprehensive and contained detailed information about the care needs for each person and how to meet these.” from the report
Health and nutrition
People's health needs were monitored and referrals were made when needed. Food choices and individual dietary needs were recorded and supported.
“People received the support they needed to stay healthy.” from the report
Safe environment
The home was clean, tidy and free from hazards. Inspectors found checks for fire safety, equipment, infection control and environmental risks.
“All areas of the home were odour-free, clean and tidy and free of any hazards and all cleaning products were safely locked away.” from the report
Open management
People, relatives and staff were invited to give feedback. The home used audits, meetings and action plans to review care and make improvements.
“The provider had effective systems in place to monitor the quality of the service and ensure that areas for improvement were identified and addressed.” from the report
Staffing pressure
needs fixingSome staff said there were times when only two staff were on duty and people had to wait for support. The rota showed the planned staffing levels, and inspectors found them adequate on the day of the visit.
“We are short staffed and we are sometimes left with two staff.” from the report
Medicine recording gaps
needs fixingTwo medicines administration records had not been signed. The home showed evidence that the medicines had been given, so inspectors treated this as a recording error.
“However, we looked at all the MAR charts and found two gaps in the recording of medicines administered.” from the report
Complaint record incomplete
needs fixingOne complaint had been discussed verbally, but the record did not show the action taken or how the issue would be prevented from happening again.
“However, no records were maintained to show how the provider dealt with the complaint in line with their complaints procedure.” from the report
Some checks not signed off
minorAudits identified improvements, but some actions were still ongoing and had not been formally completed. The provider said these would be checked and signed off without delay.
“However, we saw that actions on some areas for improvements were still ongoing and had not been signed off.” from the report
Late staff supervision
minorThe manager said some staff supervision meetings had taken place late and was arranging a schedule for regular supervision.
“The manager acknowledged that some supervisions were late and they were organising a schedule to ensure that all staff received regular supervision.” from the report
- 01How many staff are planned for each shift, and what happens when someone is absent?
- 02What checks now make sure every medicine administration record is signed correctly?
- 03How are complaints recorded, including the actions taken and steps to prevent the problem happening again?
- 04Have all the improvement actions identified in audits now been completed and signed off?
- 05How often does each staff member receive supervision, and are any sessions currently overdue?
This was an announced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, including the premises, care, records and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 June 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 Ashking House
3 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Havering
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 £1,230 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Sidonia is a first class live-in carer whose dedication and thoughtfulness made her stay a happy experience.”
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
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.