CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Ashlands Manor Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. There were enough staff and suitable recruitment checks, but inspectors found some medicine stock records did not match the actual stock.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received appropriate health support, training and food. Inspectors identified recent communication challenges between the home and the local GP practice and recommended better collaboration with local partners.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff were kind and respectful. People were supported to make choices, stay independent and involve relatives in their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and kept up to date. People had access to activities, visits, community trips and support to maintain important relationships.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had audits and management systems to monitor care and risks. Several managers since the last inspection had affected consistency, but the new manager had received positive feedback.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Ashlands Manor Care Home is rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some medicine-record and communication issues to keep under review.
The unannounced inspection took place on 17 January 2024, with inspection activity continuing until 19 January. Inspectors spoke with 5 people living at the home, 3 relatives and 8 staff. They observed care, checked medicines, records, recruitment files, the building and equipment.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, suitable training, kind care, personalised support, activities and systems for checking quality.
There were some areas to improve. Medicine stock records did not always match the actual stock, some as-required medicine instructions needed more personal detail, and communication with the local GP practice had recently been difficult. The report recommends better joint working with local health partners.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. The home had recruited to all nursing positions and no longer needed agency cover.
“From our observations we found there were enough staff to safely meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well, respected their dignity and encouraged independence. Relatives also spoke positively about the care.
“We observed staff treated people with kindness through the inspection, spending much time sitting and talking with them” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's preferences and wishes. Staff supported communication, activities, family relationships and end-of-life wishes.
“Care plans were personalised and included information about people's individual preferences and wishes.” from the report
Clean and well-maintained home
The home was clean and tidy, with checks on the building and equipment. Inspectors found infection-control practices in place.
“The home was clean and tidy with no malodour.” from the report
Medicine stock records
needs fixingIn some cases, the recorded medicine stock did not match the actual stock. Inspectors found no harm, but medicines could not always be fully accounted for.
“Although we found no harm, we identified there was an anomaly in some instances, between the stock recorded on the inventory and the actual medicine in stock” from the report
GP communication
needs fixingThere had been recent communication challenges between the home and the local GP practice. Inspectors recommended that the home and local health partners work together to prevent misunderstandings affecting continuity of care.
“However, we learnt there had been some recent challenges in the relationship between the care home and GP practice, primarily centered around communication.” from the report
Management changes
minorThere had been several registered managers since the previous inspection. Inspectors said this had not always supported consistency, although the current manager had received positive feedback.
“Since our last inspection in 2018 the home has had several registered managers, this has not always promoted consistency at the home.” from the report
- 01How are you checking that the actual medicine stock matches the electronic inventory?
- 02What changes have been made to make as-required medicine instructions more personalised?
- 03How do you now communicate with the local GP practice when someone becomes unwell or needs end-of-life care?
- 04How are you maintaining consistency after several changes of registered manager?
- 05How will you keep families informed about care-plan reviews, complaints and changes to care?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five rating areas; CQC inspected the regulated personal and nursing care, the home and its wider social care where relevant. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 February 2024 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, February 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe and responsive care, but records for some end-of-life decisions and a lift safety check needed attention.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 18 and 19 December 2018. It followed concerns about nursing staff competence, staffing levels and end-of-life care. Inspectors looked only at Safe, Responsive and Well-led.
The home continued to meet the fundamental standards and kept its overall Good rating. The Safe rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs, safer medicines systems, suitable risk assessments and a clean environment.
There were some shortfalls. Five people's DNACPR decisions were not accurately shown in all relevant records. The passenger lift had missed a required safety examination, although this was completed shortly after the inspection and the lift was found safe. Staff had also not yet received general end-of-life care training.
People spoke positively about regular staff, activities and how complaints were handled. Staff felt listened to and inspectors found systems to monitor the service, although some checks had not identified the lift and DNACPR recording problems.
Staffing met people's needs
Although staff were sometimes busy, inspectors saw that people received the support they needed without significant delays. The manager used a dependency tool and adjusted staffing when people's needs changed.
“We found there were sufficient staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Safer medicines management
The home had improved its medicines arrangements since the previous inspection. Its electronic system included safeguards such as alerts for timing and recording errors.
“We found the provider had made improvements and medicines were being managed safely.” from the report
Activities and community access
People could take part in activities on different floors and go on trips out. Inspectors saw that the home had acted to widen opportunities for engagement.
“There were a range of activities on offer, including trips out from the home.” from the report
Open management culture
Staff said they could approach managers with concerns and felt listened to. The home used meetings, surveys and a 'you said, we did' board to respond to feedback.
“Staff told us they felt listened to by the management team and told us they would feel confident to approach them and discuss any concern they might have.” from the report
DNACPR records were not consistent
seriousIn five cases, DNACPR decisions were not accurately recorded on profile pages or the electronic medicines system. Inspectors said this increased the risk that staff or health professionals might not know about the decision.
“We noted that in five cases, people had DNACPR's in place, but this was either not accurately reflected, or had not been completed on their profile pages.” from the report
Lift safety check was missed
seriousThe home could not initially show that the passenger lift had received its required thorough examination within six months. The check was completed on 24 December 2018 and the lift was found safe to use.
“The provider was unable to show us a certificate to evidence it had had a thorough examination within the past six months.” from the report
Busy periods and agency staff
needs fixingSome staff said they felt pressured at busy times, particularly in the dementia household. The home regularly used agency nurses, and the nurses working during the inspection had not worked there before.
“Some staff said they could be 'pressured' at certain busy times of the day, which was also our observation on the first-floor household that supported people living with dementia.” from the report
End-of-life training was not complete
needs fixingNurses had training in some specialist equipment, but staff had not received general end-of-life care training at the time of inspection. The manager said suitable training had recently been sourced.
“At the time of our inspection, staff had not received any general end of life training.” from the report
Short-term care plans lacked detail
minorOne person in a temporary discharge-to-assess bed had limited information about their care preferences. Inspectors recommended reviewing procedures for people staying for a short time.
“The exception to this was in relation to the care plan completed for a person who was staying in one of two allocated 'discharge to assess' beds, where there were limited details about their care preferences.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure DNACPR decisions appear correctly on profile pages, medicines records and other documents?
- 02When was the passenger lift last thoroughly examined, and how do you make sure future safety checks are not missed?
- 03Have all staff completed general end-of-life care training, including agency staff?
- 04How do you maintain safe staffing during busy morning periods, especially in the dementia household?
- 05How do you make sure people in short-term discharge-to-assess beds have care plans that record their preferences?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward into the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 February 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 Ashlands Manor Care Home
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2018GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 28 April 2017.
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 Trafford
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. 91 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.