What the CQC found at Ashley Phoenix Home

Staff knew residents well and provided compassionate, unrushed support. Relatives were generally positive about the care.

“People received kind and compassionate care from staff who knew them very well.” from the report

Bedrooms and shared areas had features such as textured surfaces, braille numbers and personalised items to help people recognise and navigate their surroundings.

“People were living in an environment that was personalised and adapted to meet their needs.” from the report

People were supported to follow their interests, go out locally and try activities suited to them. Staff also supported contact with relatives.

“People were supported to participate in their chosen social and leisure interests on a regular basis.” from the report

Staff usually respected privacy, dignity and independence. People could move around the home and spend time in places they chose.

“People were encouraged to live as independent life as possible.” from the report

Potential safeguarding concerns, including unexplained marks and incidents between residents, were not always reported. Risk assessments and environmental checks were also incomplete.

“Systems in place were not being applied to keep people safe from potential abuse.” from the report

Medicines records and return records were incomplete. At the time of inspection, there was not always a trained member of staff available overnight to give as-required medicines.

“People received their medicines in a personalised way. However, we were not assured that people always received their medicines safely” from the report

Care plans did not always record staff knowledge, individual communication methods or guidance for important health conditions. This could lead to inconsistent support.

“People were at risk of receiving inconsistent care and support not in line with their needs and wishes because care plans lacked detail.” from the report

Only four staff had completed training specifically about supporting and communicating with deafblind people. The provider's training systems had not fully recognised these needs.

“However, only four staff had completed training for supporting, communicating and working with deafblind people.” from the report

People were not always referred to health professionals promptly when their needs changed. One person was treated by staff for nearly a month without a recorded medical consultation.

“People were not always supported to see other health and social care professionals in a timely manner when their needs changed.” from the report

Quality checks did not identify problems such as broken radiators, unsafe fridge temperatures and incomplete action points. Communication during the change of provider was also limited.

“Systems were not effective at assessing, monitoring and mitigating risks to the health, safety and welfare of people using the service.” from the report