CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Ashley House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment checks, appropriate risk assessments, safe medicines management and effective infection control. Staff knew how to recognise and report abuse.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this focused report. The rating from the previous inspection was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this focused report. The rating from the previous inspection was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected in this focused report. The rating from the previous inspection was carried forward when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found open management, regular audits, staff involvement and systems for learning from incidents and complaints. The manager and provider were described as committed to good quality care.
What inspectors found, October 2022
Ashley House Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe care and strong management, but there was no registered manager in post.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 7 September 2022. Inspectors looked at Safe and Well-led. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals, and reviewed care records and management documents.
The home was rated Good overall. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practices, suitable risk assessments and good infection control. Staff knew how to protect people from abuse and worked with health professionals when people's needs changed.
Inspectors also found a positive, open culture. The manager and provider used audits, meetings, complaints and feedback to improve the service. The report says the manager was applying to register with CQC, but was not registered at the time of the inspection.
Enough staff
Inspectors found a consistent staff team that knew people well and had enough staff to meet people's needs.
“People were supported by a consistent staff team who knew them well. The service had enough staff to support people.” from the report
Safe medicines
People received medicines as prescribed. Staff carried out checks to identify and prevent medicine errors.
“Staff managed people's medicines well in accordance with national guidelines.” from the report
Good risk management
Care records identified individual risks and explained how staff should reduce them. Staff acted when one person became more at risk of choking.
“Risk assessments identified the potential risks to each person and described the measures in place to manage and minimise risks relating to people's care.” from the report
Positive culture
People and relatives spoke positively about the management and the caring culture. Staff said they felt supported.
“People benefited from a positive culture in the home. Staff demonstrated a strong desire to achieve good outcomes for people.” from the report
Learning and oversight
The home used audits, daily meetings, complaints and feedback to identify improvements and share learning with staff.
“The provider operated a robust governance system to aid continuous improvement.” from the report
Manager registration
minorThere was no registered manager in post during the inspection. A manager was in place and had started the CQC registration process.
“At the time of our inspection there wasn't a registered manager in post.” from the report
- 01What is the current progress of the manager's CQC registration?
- 02How many permanent and agency staff are usually working on each shift?
- 03How are my relative's individual risks, including mobility, choking or medicines risks, recorded and reviewed?
- 04How will you keep us informed about complaints, incidents and improvements?
- 05What evidence can you provide about the areas not inspected in this report, especially Caring, Effective and Responsive?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings carried over from the previous inspection when calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 October 2022 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, September 2020
Ashley House Care Home was inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured about infection control, with two procedures needing review.
Inspectors visited on 26 August 2020 as part of a targeted review during the coronavirus pandemic. They looked at infection prevention and control measures, rather than carrying out a full inspection of all areas of care.
They were assured that the home admitted people safely, used protective equipment properly, accessed testing, maintained hygiene, and had measures to prevent or manage outbreaks. The home also supported people to keep in touch with relatives and take part in activities.
The overall rating and the Safe rating were both recorded as inspected but not rated. Inspectors asked the provider to review screening for visiting maintenance workers and social distancing for staff using the lift. The report says action was taken immediately.
Safer visiting arrangements
The home created a covered garden visiting area with a clear screen and booked visits to reduce infection risks.
“The service had set up a covered area in the enclosed garden for people's visitors.” from the report
Support to stay connected
Staff helped people keep in touch with relatives and friends and take part in activities or one-to-one conversations.
“People were supported to stay socially engaged and not to become lonely.” from the report
Support for a new admission
The home arranged a Covid-19 test for someone who wanted to move in but could not access testing in the community.
“The care home arranged a test on their behalf and so enabled the person to move in.” from the report
Isolation for new residents
People moving into the home were isolated for 14 days, with dedicated staff and a suitable room to reduce infection spread.
“People moving into the home were isolated for 14 days as a precaution.” from the report
Two procedures needed review
minorInspectors asked the provider to review screening for visiting maintenance workers and social distancing for staff using the lift. The report says action was taken immediately.
“We signposted the provider to review their procedures for screening visiting maintenance workers and to review social distancing for staff using the lift.” from the report
- 01What changes were made to screen visiting maintenance workers, and how are those checks recorded?
- 02How is social distancing managed for staff using the lift now?
- 03What is the home's latest full inspection rating, since this inspection was targeted?
- 04How are booked visits, cleaning and screening managed for visitors now?
- 05How are new residents tested and supported during their 14-day isolation period?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; it did not provide ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive or Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 September 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.
Every inspection of Ashley House Care Home
4 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2022Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- April 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- August 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 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
38 live-in carers within about an hour of Gloucestershire
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 £1,030 to £1,360 a week. 31 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
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.