CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ashleigh Residential Home Limited
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found good arrangements for risk assessments, medicines, staffing, infection control and learning from accidents.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the skills and knowledge to support people's needs, and people received a varied diet and access to healthcare. Some paper care plans contradicted the newer electronic records, although inspectors judged the impact on people to be low.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in their care and supported to make choices and keep in contact with family and friends.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was planned around people's individual needs, interests and communication requirements. Activities were arranged regularly, although one complaint remained unresolved to the person's satisfaction and end of life planning could be developed further.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had clear leadership, regular quality checks and an open culture. People, relatives and staff were invited to give feedback, and the home worked with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, December 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with some records and planning needing improvement.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection based on the previous Good rating. It took place on 12 November 2019 and was completed in one day. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and reviewed care, medicines, complaints, training and other records.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and supported by staff who understood their needs. People were positive about the food, activities, staff and atmosphere.
Inspectors found some areas to improve. Paper and electronic care records were not always consistent, the privacy assessment for communal-area cameras needed updating, and end of life wishes could be explored further. One complaint had not yet been resolved to the person's satisfaction.
People were kept safe
Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, medicines were managed safely, and staff knew how to respond to safeguarding concerns.
“People remained safe at the service and risks about their well-being were assessed, recorded and reviewed.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives described staff positively. Inspectors saw staff treating people with dignity and supporting their choices.
“Staff always treated people with kindness and respect and people told us they felt involved and supported in their care.” from the report
Activities and communication
People were supported to follow their interests and join activities. Information and technology were available in different ways to help people communicate and stay connected.
“People were supported to follow their interests and take part in activities that were socially and culturally relevant and appropriate to them.” from the report
Clear leadership and quality checks
Inspectors found regular audits, staff meetings and spot checks. Staff understood their roles and felt able to raise concerns.
“The provider carried out regular checks of the safety and quality of the service to make sure people were receiving good care.” from the report
Care records did not always agree
needs fixingSome paper care plans contained information that contradicted the newer electronic records. Inspectors judged the impact to be low but asked the home to improve the paper documentation.
“Some people's support plans and care records were inconsistent in the level of guidance between the paper and new electronic records.” from the report
Communal-area camera privacy assessment
needs fixingThe home used cameras in communal areas. Inspectors asked the provider to update the privacy impact assessment for all clients.
“We asked that the provider update their privacy impact assessment for all clients, the registered manager was going to make sure this was addressed.” from the report
End of life wishes
needs fixingSome people's wishes were recorded, but inspectors said this area could be explored further. No one was receiving end of life care during the inspection.
“However, there was opportunity for this area to be further explored and this was discussed with the registered manager.” from the report
One complaint was still being resolved
needs fixingOne person was not satisfied with the outcome of a complaint. The manager knew about this and was working towards a resolution.
“Another person told us they felt unsatisfied with the outcome of a complaint they had raised, the registered manager acknowledged they were aware of this and were working towards a resolution for that person.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure paper and electronic care records give staff the same guidance?
- 02What has been done to update the privacy impact assessment for the cameras in communal areas?
- 03How will you record and review my relative's end of life wishes?
- 04How are complaints tracked through to a satisfactory resolution?
- 05How do you check that care remains personalised and safe between formal inspections?
This was an unannounced, one-day inspection covering all five CQC questions; all ratings remained Good from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 14 December 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, May 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with one nutrition-recording shortfall being addressed.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 11 April 2017. One inspector reviewed records, spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff, and observed care for people who could not fully communicate.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training, respectful care and personalised care planning.
The home remained Good, which was the same rating as at the previous inspection in August 2015. Inspectors identified one issue with recording the right amounts of food and drink for people whose nutrition was monitored. The manager said this would be addressed urgently.
Safe staffing and medicines
People said staff were available and did not make them wait too long. Inspectors found medicines were administered, recorded and stored safely.
“People received their medicines as prescribed and accurate records were maintained of the medicines when they were administered.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people's preferences, asked permission before providing care and supported privacy, dignity and independence.
“People continued to be cared for by kind, caring and compassionate staff who knew their needs and wishes.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's needs, wishes and personal histories. People and relatives were involved in planning where possible.
“Care plans were personalised to identify and meet people's needs and wishes.” from the report
Activities and involvement
People were offered games, outings, one-to-one time and chances to help decide menus and special occasions.
“People were consulted on how the service was managed and run.” from the report
Stable and visible management
The manager regularly worked care shifts, knew people's needs and supported staff. Inspectors found good morale and little staff turnover.
“The registered manager kept up to date on people's needs by completing at least two care shifts a week.” from the report
Nutrition records lacked target amounts
needs fixingFor people whose food and drink were being monitored, records were completed but did not say how much should ideally be taken. The manager said this would be corrected urgently.
“The paperwork was completed, however there was not any information on the optimum amounts to be taken.” from the report
- 01How have you changed the nutrition records so they show the right amounts of food and drink for each person?
- 02How do you check that people receive enough food and fluids when their intake is being monitored?
- 03How often are care plans and risk assessments reviewed and updated?
- 04How are people and relatives involved in planning care, activities and outings?
- 05How do staff receive training and supervision to support people with dementia and other age-related conditions?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the overall quality of the home and all five CQC question areas; the previous inspection was in August 2015. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 May 2017 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 Ashleigh Residential Home Limited
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- December 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Ashleigh Residential Home Limited →
- May 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Ashleigh Residential Home Limited →
- November 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 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
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.