CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Ashley House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors looked only at staffing and infection prevention and control. They were assured about most arrangements, but only somewhat assured about preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found mostly reassuring infection control, but visitor infection risks and vaccination records needed attention.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 22 February 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control during the COVID-19 pandemic, as well as staffing pressures. The home had 16 residents and could support up to 16 people.
Inspectors were assured about most infection control arrangements. These included use of PPE, testing, cleaning, social distancing, safe admissions, visits and managing outbreaks. Relatives had to provide a negative lateral flow test before visiting.
The home was rated inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give a new overall rating or a new rating for Safe. Inspectors looked only at staffing and infection prevention and control within that area.
Visiting arrangements
There was a clear process for relatives to visit safely, including testing and encouragement to use PPE.
“There was a clear process to allow relatives to meet family members.” from the report
PPE and distancing
Staff were seen using PPE and keeping their distance in line with the guidance in force at the time.
“Staff were observed socially distancing and wearing personal protective equipment (PPE) in line with current guidance.” from the report
Outbreak response
The home had plans for outbreaks, including using the same staff with people who had tested positive and increasing cleaning where needed.
“When an outbreak did occur, plans were followed to minimise the risk of cross infection by using the same staff to support people were had tested positive.” from the report
Infection control guidance
Inspectors found the infection prevention and control policy was up to date, with staff receiving current guidance and training.
“We were assured that the provider's infection prevention and control policy was up to date.” from the report
Visitor infection risk
needs fixingInspectors were not fully assured that visitors were being prevented from catching and spreading infections.
“We were somewhat assured that the provider was preventing visitors from catching and spreading infections.” from the report
Agency vaccination records
needs fixingThe manager could not initially show enough evidence that a recently used agency worker was vaccinated. Confirmation was sent immediately after the visit, and the manager agreed to review the records with the agency.
“We found one agency staff member who had recently worked at the service, yet the registered manager did not have sufficient evidence to show us, the staff member was vaccinated.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that visitors are not bringing or spreading infections?
- 02What testing and PPE arrangements are currently used for relatives and other visitors?
- 03How do you check and record COVID-19 vaccination or exemption evidence for agency staff before they work here?
- 04What staffing measures are in place if COVID-19 causes staff shortages?
- 05How would you manage an infection outbreak, including staff allocation, isolation and extra cleaning?
This was a targeted inspection of staffing and infection prevention and control; it did not assess Effective, Caring, Responsive or Well-led, and Safe was inspected but not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 March 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, October 2017
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with a few records needing improvement.
This was a comprehensive, unannounced inspection on 24 August 2017. One inspector spoke with four people living at the home, managers and care staff. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, training, incident records and quality checks.
The home was supporting 13 people, which was its registered maximum. Inspectors found enough skilled staff, detailed care plans, safe medicines processes and staff who understood people's needs. People said they felt safe, cared for and able to make choices.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating as at the previous inspection. Inspectors identified some records and guidance that needed to be more detailed.
Personalised support
Care plans contained detailed information about people's needs, abilities and preferred ways of being supported. Staff used this information in practice.
“Care plans contained personalised information to help staff respond to people's needs as effectively as possible.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions, maintain relationships, follow their interests and build independence.
“People were supported to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Staffing and safety
Inspectors found enough trained and experienced staff. Staff understood safeguarding and individual risks, and medicines were generally managed safely.
“There were enough trained and experienced staff to be responsive to meet their needs.” from the report
Open management
The home used meetings, surveys and audits to gather views and identify improvements. The manager took immediate action when inspectors raised an issue about displaying the rating online.
“The registered manager had an 'open door' policy for people, relatives, staff and visitors to the home.” from the report
Care review records
needs fixingReviews had taken place, but records did not always clearly show what had been discussed or what actions had been agreed. The manager said this would be addressed.
“There was not always clear or detailed information on what was discussed at these reviews, or actions agreed as a result.” from the report
Incident reporting
needs fixingInspectors found an incident that had not been reported to the local authority. The home took immediate action after this was identified.
“They took immediate action when we found an incident had not been reported to the local authority.” from the report
- 01How were the instructions for people's as-required medicines made more personalised after this inspection?
- 02How do you now record what was discussed and agreed at each care plan review?
- 03What systems are in place to ensure all incidents are reported to the local authority when required?
- 04How was the extension and refurbishment completed, and how were people kept safe and supported during the work?
- 05What has changed at the home since this 2017 inspection?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 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 House
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 17 November 2013.
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 Warwickshire
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 £1,260 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.