CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ashley House Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People felt safe and staff understood safeguarding. Risks were assessed and reviewed monthly, but topical cream charts were not always signed.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. The previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had regular quality checks, approachable managers and positive feedback from relatives and staff. A safeguarding concern had not been notified to the CQC, but this was described as a one-off oversight.
What inspectors found, October 2021
Ashley House Residential Home was rated Good; inspectors found people were safe and well supported, with minor recording and notification gaps.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 4 October 2021. One inspector spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found people felt safe, there were enough staff, risks were reviewed, medicines were given as prescribed and the home was clean. Safeguarding concerns had been reported to the local authority and police and investigated appropriately.
There were two shortcomings. Staff did not always sign topical cream charts, and a safeguarding concern had not been notified to the CQC. The report says this was a one-off oversight and found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from the concern.
The other three ratings were not inspected during this visit. They were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection, which was also rated Good.
People felt safe
People and relatives said they felt safe. Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to report concerns.
“People and relatives told us they felt safe living at Ashley House.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were completed before new staff started.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Clean and infection controls
The home was clean and staff were observed using appropriate protective equipment. Visitor and new resident testing arrangements followed government guidance.
“The home was clean throughout, with cleaning schedules in place.” from the report
Regular quality checks
The home used weekly and monthly checks and had requested external medicines and infection control audits. Recommendations from those audits were being implemented.
“A quality assurance system was in place with weekly and monthly checks made in a range of areas, including health and safety and infection control.” from the report
Topical cream records
needs fixingCream charts were not consistently signed, so records did not show how often creams had been applied. Inspectors recommended following best practice for these records.
“However, the cream charts were not consistently signed by care staff, meaning it was not possible to show how frequently the creams were being applied.” from the report
Safeguarding notification
needs fixingA safeguarding concern was reported to the local authority and police, but not to the CQC. Inspectors described this as a one-off oversight and explained the notification requirements.
“However, they had not notified the CQC.” from the report
Some difficulty accessing a GP
minorThe report says there had been some problems getting a GP to visit during COVID-19, although telephone and video calls were arranged.
“However, during COVID-19, there had been some issues getting a GP to visit the home, although telephone and video calls were arranged.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure topical cream charts are signed every time creams are applied?
- 02What checks are in place to ensure all safeguarding concerns are notified to the CQC when required?
- 03What were the recommendations from the medicines audit, and have they all been completed?
- 04How do you arrange medical reviews when a GP cannot visit the home?
- 05Can you explain which ratings came from the previous comprehensive inspection rather than this visit?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 October 2021 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, January 2021
Ashley House Residential Home was rated Good overall; a targeted inspection found measures to reduce COVID-19 infection risks, but Safe was not rated.
Inspectors visited on 15 December 2020. This was an announced, targeted inspection during the coronavirus outbreak. It looked at infection prevention and control practices.
Inspectors were assured that the home was managing visitors, shielding, social distancing, testing, hygiene and outbreaks. The infection prevention and control policy was up to date.
The home had separated its lounge for people who had tested positive and those who had tested negative. It had also created a visiting area by the rear entrance, with a Perspex screen.
The overall rating was Good. However, Safe was inspected but not rated, and this visit did not provide new ratings for the other areas of care.
Separate lounge areas
The home had divided the lounge so that people who had tested positive for COVID-19 were separated from those who had tested negative.
“The connecting doors in the lounge had been closed to create two separate lounges.” from the report
Safer family visits
A visiting area near the rear entrance meant visitors did not need to pass through the rest of the home. A Perspex screen was used to reduce risk.
“A visiting area had been created by the rear entrance.” from the report
Infection control arrangements
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements covering testing, social distancing, hygiene and the prevention or management of outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Approach still being developed
minorInspectors signposted the home to resources to develop its infection prevention and control approach. The report does not explain what specific improvement was needed.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What changes, if any, were made after inspectors signposted the home to resources to develop its infection prevention and control approach?
- 02How are visitors currently kept from passing through the rest of the home?
- 03How would the home separate people if there were another infection outbreak?
- 04How does the home arrange testing for residents and staff now?
This was an announced, targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a coronavirus outbreak; Safe was inspected but not rated and the other care areas were not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 7 January 2021 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 Residential Home
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2021Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
Read what inspectors found at Ashley House Residential Home →
- January 2021Goodstayed GoodSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Ashley House Residential Home →
- January 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- December 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 January 2014.
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 Manchester
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 89 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
“She is an exemplary carer, she is knowledgable empathetic and very respectful in the home.”
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.