CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ashlee Residential Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks and medicines records were not always managed safely, although staff were caring and there was enough PPE.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 10 November 2020. Inspectors looked especially at infection prevention and control, but also examined care records, medicines, staffing, recruitment and how the home was managed. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, and reviewed records.
The home was rated Requires Improvement overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found that some risks were not properly recorded or managed, medicines checks were not always followed up, and management oversight was fragmented.
There were also positive findings. Medicines were usually supported by an electronic system, staff were observed using protective equipment, and relatives spoke highly of the staff. Staff treated people with dignity and respect, but activities and consultation with residents were limited.
The previous overall rating was Good, published on 19 August 2019. The report says the service had deteriorated to Requires Improvement. The provider was required to send CQC an action plan, and CQC said it would check whether improvements were made.
Caring staff
Inspectors found that staff treated people with dignity and respect. Relatives said people were well looked after and kept safe.
“People were supported well by staff who cared for them and treated them with dignity and respect.” from the report
Protective equipment
There was enough PPE at the visit. Staff were seen using masks, gloves and aprons, with regular changes during personal care.
“There was enough PPE and we saw staff wearing masks, gloves and aprons.” from the report
Staff understood safeguarding
Staff knew how to recognise possible abuse and how to report concerns. They had received safeguarding training.
“Staff knew how to spot the signs of abuse and could tell us who they would report to if they were unhappy about a situation.” from the report
Electronic medicines prompts
The electronic medicines system prompted staff about when medicines should be given. Inspectors said medicines were managed safely in this respect.
“Medicines were managed safely, they had an electronic system in place which effectively prompted times which medication should be administered.” from the report
Risks were not fully recorded
seriousSome risks, including choking and falls, were known by staff but were not properly reflected in care plans or risk assessments. This could increase the risk of harm.
“Some risk assessments were in place but not all risks had been assessed and mitigated.” from the report
Medicines checks were incomplete
seriousProtocols for medicines given when needed were initially missing. An audit found missing signatures for thickener, but there was no recorded action to address this.
“Protocols for the administration of 'as required' medicines were not in place.” from the report
Poor cleanliness
needs fixingCarpets throughout the home were very soiled. Inspectors said they posed a risk of infection, and some carpets needed replacing because they were worn.
“However, carpets throughout the home were very soiled and posed a risk of infection.” from the report
Limited activities and consultation
needs fixingPeople were not always consulted about decisions affecting the home. Activities were available only every other day through a shared activities co-ordinator, and inspectors saw no meaningful activities during the visit.
“People were not always provided with high quality, person centred care.” from the report
Weak management oversight
needs fixingThere was no registered manager at the inspection. Audits did not always record actions, and issues such as missing fridge temperature and cleaning records had not been picked up.
“Governance and oversight of the service was fragmented, the provider followed up audits and had an action plan but this did not cover all of the day to day actions required.” from the report
- 01Has a registered manager now started, and who is responsible for the home until registration is confirmed?
- 02How are choking, falls and other risks recorded in each person's care plan and reviewed after an incident?
- 03How are 'as required' medicines authorised, and how do you check that medicines records and signatures are complete?
- 04What has been done about the soiled and worn carpets, and how is cleaning now checked?
- 05What activities are available each day, and how are residents involved in choosing them and other decisions?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection focused on infection prevention and control, although inspectors also reviewed safety and management; only Safe and Well-led were rated in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 December 2020 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, August 2019
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with effective management.
This was the home’s first inspection since it registered. The inspection was unannounced and took place on 1 August 2019. One inspector spoke with people, a relative, staff and health professionals, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines procedures, suitable risk assessments and good infection control. People were supported with food, healthcare, communication and decisions about their care. Staff were described as kind, respectful and familiar with people's needs.
Care plans were personalised and regularly updated. People could take part in activities, raise concerns and make choices about their lives. The home had regular quality checks and the manager was seen as approachable and effective.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspectors found consistently good care in the areas they checked. It was the first inspection, so there was no previous rating to compare.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people’s needs. Medicines were stored, administered and checked safely.
“Medicines were safely managed, stored securely and given when people needed them.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them in their preferred way. People’s privacy, dignity and independence were respected.
“We saw, and people confirmed they were treated with kindness and consideration by the staff team.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people’s preferences and needs and were reviewed regularly. Activities were based on people’s interests.
“Staff knew people well and care plans were in place that were personalised, detailed and regularly updated.” from the report
Good management checks
The home used regular audits and feedback to monitor care and make improvements. Staff said the management team was supportive.
“Quality audits were in place to measure the success of the service and to drive improvement.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What is the current position on the applications made for the further four people subject to DoLS restrictions?
- 02How would you support my relative’s particular communication needs, including any vision, hearing or communication aids?
- 03Which activities are available that match my relative’s interests, and how are their preferences recorded?
- 04How often would my relative’s care plan and risk assessments be reviewed if their needs changed?
- 05How would you involve my relative and our family in planning end-of-life care if it became needed?
This was an unannounced first inspection that looked at all five CQC areas, including the care provided and how the home was run. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 August 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 Ashlee Residential Care Home
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- December 2020Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Ashlee Residential Care Home →
- August 2019GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Ashlee Residential Care Home →
- July 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 July 2018.
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
62 live-in carers within about an hour of Derbyshire
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 £1,010 to £1,260 a week. 51 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Ernest is an amazing professional carer who delivers care from the heart.”
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.