CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ashlea Mews
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors looked only at infection control and staffing concerns, rather than the whole Safe question. They found enough trained staff and good infection prevention arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and enough trained staff, while the previous overall rating remained Good.
This was a targeted inspection on 29 December 2020 after a coronavirus outbreak and anonymous concerns about staffing. One inspector reviewed infection control arrangements and staffing records, and spoke with the managers.
Inspectors found the home clean and tidy. Staff used protective equipment properly, followed hand hygiene guidance and responded quickly when people needed help. They were satisfied that infection outbreaks could be prevented or managed.
There were enough trained and experienced staff to meet people's needs. This inspection did not give a new overall rating. The previous overall rating was Good, published in July 2019, and remained unchanged.
Infection control
The home was clean and tidy. Inspectors were assured that protective equipment, testing, hygiene and outbreak arrangements were being used safely.
“The provider had good infection prevention and control (IPC) practices in the home.” from the report
Staffing levels
Inspectors found enough skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs. Staff had the training needed to help people with moving and assisting.
“There were enough skilled and experienced staff deployed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Staff availability
There was a clear staff presence, and staff responded quickly when people asked for help.
“There was a visible staff presence around the home; staff responded quickly to people's requests for help.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are staffing levels reviewed now, and what happens if staffing falls below the level needed?
- 02How do you make sure staff continue to use protective equipment and follow hand hygiene guidance?
- 03What arrangements are in place for testing people living here and staff?
- 04How would you manage another infection outbreak, including admissions and visitors?
- 05What checks have been made on recruitment since this inspection, as recruitment was not reviewed?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and staffing levels; it did not assess the full Safe question or the other four questions, so the previous ratings carried over. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 February 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, July 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but noted limited activities, staffing pressure, cleanliness and record-keeping concerns.
This was an unannounced inspection on 27 June 2019. Inspectors spoke with 11 people, 10 relatives, nine staff and a visiting professional. They also observed care and checked care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were protected from abuse, risks were managed, medicines were handled safely and staff received training and support.
Inspectors found kind and respectful care, good involvement in decisions and effective support from health professionals. The environment was well designed, especially for people living with dementia.
There were areas to improve. Staff were busy and had limited time for activities, some areas needed better cleaning, menus and meal timings needed review, and complaint investigations were not always recorded in writing.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Staff supported people's dignity, independence, choices and privacy.
“People were provided with kind and compassionate care.” from the report
Good risk management
Risk assessments reflected people's individual needs and were reviewed when needs changed. Staff also managed medicines safely.
“Risks were well-managed and risk assessments were in place.” from the report
Skilled and supported staff
Staff completed induction, ongoing training, supervision and appraisal. They understood consent and best-interest decision-making.
“New staff completed a comprehensive induction, including the Care Certificate and worked with experienced staff members to learn about their role.” from the report
Personalised support
Care records gave staff detailed information about people's health, communication, preferences and support needs. People and families were involved in care decisions.
“People were supported by staff who had a good understanding of their care and support needs.” from the report
Dementia-friendly environment
The home had themed areas, sitting spaces, clear signs and personalised bedrooms to support orientation and engagement.
“The environment was well designed to keep people engaged and stimulated.” from the report
Staff time and cleanliness
needs fixingStaff were busy and did not always have time to spend with people. Some communal furniture was sticky and a carpet was stained and worn when domestic cover was reduced.
“We recommend the provider keeps staffing levels under review so staff have time to occupy people and to ensure an adequate standard of cleanliness around the building.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingAlthough a daily activities programme was advertised, inspectors saw limited activities and engagement. People on one floor did not get the opportunity to go outside.
“There were limited activities and opportunities for engagement for people.” from the report
Food variety and meal timings
needs fixingInspectors found some menus were not varied or nutritious enough, with too much carbohydrate. Some meals were served less than four hours apart and people ate little at the early evening meal.
“This was not a varied, nutritious diet as there was an excess of carbohydrate.” from the report
Complaint records
needs fixingThe home kept a complaints log, but there was no written evidence showing how complaints had been investigated or what actions had been taken and acknowledged.
“There was no written evidence available of investigation and the actions taken as a result of a complaint with a letter of acknowledgement to the complainant.” from the report
- 01What staffing levels are in place now, and how do you make sure staff have enough time for activities and engagement?
- 02What changes have been made to cleaning arrangements, particularly when domestic staff are absent?
- 03How have menus and meal times changed to provide a more varied and balanced diet?
- 04What activities are now available for people on each floor, including opportunities to go outside?
- 05How are complaints investigated, recorded and followed up with the person who raised them?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, with both the care provided and the premises examined. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 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.
Every inspection of Ashlea Mews
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 30 April 2016.
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 South Tyneside
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 £950 to £1,140 a week. 34 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Petty introduced herself to Mum every time she was caring for her and responded very quickly to Mum if she was distressed in the night.”
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.