CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ashlea House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment and risk assessments that were reviewed and updated. Medicines were managed safely, with staff training, competency checks and regular audits.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed before they moved in and staff received broad training, including specialist training. People were supported with food, healthcare, activities and making their own drinks.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with warmth, compassion, kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in house meetings, care planning and decisions about their support.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's needs, preferences, communication and goals. Staff supported a busy range of activities, including trips out, independent travel, volunteering and paid work where appropriate.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found better oversight and quality checks by the provider and registered manager. Staff said communication was good and felt supported, and feedback was used to improve the home.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Good in every area; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred support, with leadership improved since the last inspection.
The inspection visit took place on 23 May 2019. Ashlea House supported four adults with learning disabilities, which was its full registered capacity. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked records, medicines, training and the home.
Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk plans and safe medicines systems. People were supported to make choices, stay healthy, take part in activities and develop independence. Staff were described as warm, compassionate and kind.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The previous inspection had rated Well-led Requires Improvement because there had been no registered manager for two years. At this inspection, the home had a newly registered manager and Well-led was rated Good.
Building independence
People were supported to make choices, learn daily living skills, travel independently and work towards a less dependent lifestyle.
“Staff enabled people to lead a busy and active lifestyle and supported them to maximise their potential for independence.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
Inspectors saw positive relationships between people and staff. People were given time to communicate and were supported with privacy, dignity and choice.
“Observations of staff interactions with people showed them to be compassionate, kind and caring.” from the report
Safe medicines
The home had systems for storing, administering and checking medicines. Staff training and competency were kept up to date.
“Safe systems were in place for the receipt storage administration and disposal of medicines.” from the report
Improved leadership
Leadership had improved since the previous inspection, when Well-led was Requires Improvement. The provider and manager used regular checks, reviews and feedback to monitor quality.
“At this inspection in May 2019 all domains were rated good and the overall rating of the service remained Good.” from the report
Active daily life
People took part in activities inside and outside the home, based on their interests. Staff adapted activities when they were no longer enjoyable or stimulating.
“This was a busy household. Individual planners detailed the activities people took part both inside and outside the service.” from the report
More visual information may be needed
minorPeople were happy to receive information verbally, but the manager agreed that wider use of pictures could help some people understand information. The manager said this would be progressed with staff.
“Although people were happy to receive information verbally from staff the registered manager agreed that wider use of pictorial prompts would benefit some people's understanding and would progress this with staff.” from the report
- 01What progress has been made with using pictorial prompts to help people understand information?
- 02How are any restrictions on a person's liberty authorised, reviewed and kept as least restrictive as possible?
- 03How will you support my relative to build independence through activities, travel, household tasks or work?
- 04How will you involve me and my relative in reviewing the care plan and making changes?
- 05How are medicines, including medicines prescribed as and when required, checked and reviewed?
This was a planned inspection covering all five CQC areas; all ratings were given at this inspection, and the previous Well-led Requires Improvement rating changed to Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 July 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.
What inspectors found, November 2016
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, but the home needed improvement in management arrangements.
This was an announced inspection on 27 October 2016. One inspector spoke with all four people living at the home, two support staff and the manager. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines records, accident logs, audits and policies.
Inspectors found that people were safe and received effective care. Staff were trained and supported. Medicines were managed safely. People said staff were kind, respectful and caring. Care plans focused on each person's choices, activities and goals.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive were all rated Good. Well-led was rated Requires Improvement because there had been no registered manager for more than two years and no registration application had been started. The manager agreed to take action.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough suitably qualified and experienced staff to keep people safe. Staff from other services in the provider group covered shifts instead of agency staff, supporting continuity.
“There were sufficient numbers of suitably qualified and experienced staff in place to keep people safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff listened to people, showed interest in their views and supported their privacy, dignity and independence.
“Staff treated people with respect and dignity at all times.” from the report
Person-centred support
Care records described what mattered to each person. People were supported with activities, employment, education and longer-term goals.
“People's care records contained detailed examples of people controlling their own lives and guidance was provided for staff on how people wanted them to support them.” from the report
Staff training and support
Staff had a wide-ranging training programme and received regular supervision and appraisals. Staff said they felt well trained and supported.
“Records showed that staff received a wide ranging induction and training programme designed to equip them with the skills needed to support people safely.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingA manager was in post, but had not started an application to become registered with the CQC. The home had been without a registered manager for more than two years.
“The service had not had a registered manager for over two years.” from the report
Emergency plans needed personalising
needs fixingThe home's evacuation plan did not include a personalised assessment of each person's physical and mental health needs in an emergency.
“However, the evacuation plan did not contain a personalised assessment of each person's needs in an emergency.” from the report
Advocacy information was not easy to access
minorInformation about independent advocacy was kept in the manager's office and people had to request it. The manager agreed to make it easier to access.
“However, this information was only available if they requested it from the manager.” from the report
DoLS needed consideration
needs fixingInspectors asked the manager to consider whether an application was needed for one person, to make sure their liberty was not being unintentionally or unlawfully restricted.
“We asked the manager to consider whether DoLS may be required for one person living at the home to ensure their liberty was not being unintentionally and unlawfully deprived.” from the report
- 01Has the manager now applied to become registered with the CQC, and what is the current position?
- 02Does every person now have a personalised emergency evacuation plan covering their physical and mental health needs?
- 03How can people access independent advocacy information without having to ask the manager?
- 04What was the outcome of considering whether Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were needed for the person identified in the report?
- 05How are people involved in checking that care plans, activities and personal goals still reflect their choices?
This was an announced inspection covering all five questions, with all four people, two support staff and the manager spoken with and care records, medicines records, incidents and audits reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 November 2016 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 Ashlea House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 October 2013.
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.