CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ashley Court Care Limited
Rated Inadequate: inspectors found the home performing badly and the CQC has taken enforcement action.
What inspectors found, April 2020
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the home’s leadership and some records required improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection on 26 and 27 February 2020. The inspector spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They observed care and reviewed care, medicine, complaints and quality records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. People were seen as safe, treated with dignity, supported by enough staff and given care that reflected their needs, choices, interests and beliefs.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. The provider was absent during the inspection and staff were not fully clear about who was responsible for running the home. Medicine audits, consent records and some care plan information also needed improvement.
The overall rating stayed Good. The previous inspection in October 2017 was also Good, but the well-led rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff responded quickly when people asked for help, and staffing levels were kept under review.
“People told us they did not have to wait for support, and we saw staff responded quickly when people asked for assistance.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found that staff knew people well, respected their privacy and dignity, and involved them in everyday choices.
“People were always treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Personalised activities and relationships
People were supported to follow hobbies, attend social events and practise their religion. Links with a local school helped reduce social isolation.
“People benefited from close links with a local school.” from the report
Good health and nutrition support
Staff worked with health professionals and followed specialist advice about nutrition, swallowing and skin care.
“Staff monitored people's weights and followed guidance from the dietician and speech and language therapist where people were at risk of choking and needed liquids thickened and meals pureed.” from the report
Unclear leadership cover
needs fixingWhen the provider was unexpectedly absent, the deputy manager did not have access to some management information and was unsure about their responsibilities.
“The deputy manager did not have access to some information relevant to the management of the service and felt unsure of their role in maintaining the continuity of the service.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingFor medicines given when needed, staff did not always record why they had been given. Photographs were also missing from some medicine administration records.
“We found when people received their medicines on an 'as required basis', known as PRN, staff did not record why the medicine had been given.” from the report
Consent records
needs fixingThe home generally followed the law on best-interest decisions, but records did not always show consent-related activity clearly enough.
“Improvements were needed to ensure all consent related activity was recorded in line with the MCA and assure us people's rights were always upheld.” from the report
Care plan detail
minorCare plans covered many personal preferences, but did not always record protected characteristics. The provider had started reviewing the care plan format.
“However, this did not always include recording people's protected characteristics to ensure their preferences were fully identified and met.” from the report
- 01What arrangements are now in place if the provider is absent, and who is responsible for each part of running the home?
- 02How do you record the reason when a person receives an as-required medicine?
- 03How do you check that medicine administration records contain current photographs where needed?
- 04How are capacity assessments and other consent decisions recorded for each specific decision?
- 05How have care plans been updated to record people’s protected characteristics and preferences?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five key questions, with the home’s premises and care both reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 April 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, October 2017
Ashley Court Care Limited was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with previous medicine storage problems fixed.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and managers. They observed care and reviewed care plans, medicine records, staff files, complaints and other management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from harm, supported by enough safely recruited staff, and given their medicines as prescribed.
People were supported by staff who understood their needs and preferences. Inspectors found good support with choices, independence, food, health care, activities, privacy and dignity. People and relatives knew how to raise concerns, and complaints were used to make improvements.
The home was rated Good at the previous inspection too. Inspectors said the earlier problem with safe medicine storage had been corrected.
Medicines were safer
The previous inspection found medicines were not always stored safely. Inspectors found the required improvements had been made, with accurate records and effective checks.
“At this inspection we found the provider has made the required improvements.” from the report
Caring relationships
People had good relationships with staff. Inspectors saw staff spending time talking with people and found interactions to be respectful.
“We found staff took time to talk to people, they were caring in their approach, and people were observed smiling at staff when they engaged with them.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff understood people's likes, dislikes and routines. Care plans recorded personal preferences, and people were involved in assessments and regular reviews.
“This meant people received support from staff that understood their needs and preferences.” from the report
Good management checks
The management team used audits, meetings, surveys and daily checks to monitor care and respond to people's views.
“This meant there were systems in place to check the quality of the service people received.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you check that medicines continue to be stored safely and given as prescribed?
- 02How do you adjust staffing levels if my relative's needs increase?
- 03How will my relative's cultural, religious, dietary and personal preferences be recorded and reviewed?
- 04What activities would be available to match my relative's interests?
- 05How would you respond if my family raised a complaint or concern?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and the overall quality rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 October 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 Ashley Court Care Limited
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- April 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Wolverhampton
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 £1,230 a week. 89 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“Knowing Mum was in Corina's care made an enormous difference to us and we knew she was in safe hands.”
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.