CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ashlodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Ashlodge was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection-control arrangements, but visitor vaccination checks were not being done at the time.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 25 February 2022. It focused on infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and whether COVID-19 staffing pressures affected care.
Inspectors found the home was clean and had regular cleaning, infection-control audits, enough protective equipment and COVID-19 training. People and staff were tested, and staff used masks and hand sanitiser. Families were supported to visit in different ways.
The home was inspected but not rated overall. Safe was also inspected but not rated. Inspectors found that vaccination checks for visiting professionals and contractors were not being completed during the visit. The registered manager changed the visiting procedure immediately.
Family visiting
People were supported to keep in contact with friends and family through face-to-face visits, garden visits and window or door visits when needed.
“People were supported by staff to have visits from their friends and family in various ways throughout the pandemic.” from the report
Clean surroundings
The home had regular domestic staff and a cleaning programme that included frequent cleaning of areas people often touch.
“The home was clean and there was regular domestic staff who completed a cleaning programme.” from the report
Infection-control leadership
An infection-control lead monitored staff practice and carried out audits. Staff had COVID-19 training and regular updates.
“There was an allocated infection control lead who monitored staff practice and carried out regular infection control audits.” from the report
Protective measures
Inspectors found enough PPE, regular testing, hand sanitiser and suitable bins for disposing of PPE.
“There was a good supply of personal protective equipment (PPE) and staff had received specific COVID-19 training.” from the report
Visitor vaccination checks
needs fixingAt the inspection, staff were not checking whether visiting professionals and contractors had been vaccinated. The visiting procedure was changed immediately after this was identified.
“During the inspection it was noted that staff were not ensuring professionals and contractors visiting the service had been vaccinated.” from the report
- 01How do you now check the vaccination status or exemption of visiting professionals and contractors before they enter?
- 02How are you currently managing any COVID-19-related staffing pressures?
- 03How often are infection-control audits carried out, and what happens when they identify a problem?
- 04How can families visit, including if face-to-face visits are restricted?
- 05How are people and staff currently tested for COVID-19, and how is PPE use monitored?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, visiting arrangements and COVID-19 staffing pressures; it did not assess the other four key questions and gave no overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 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, August 2018
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, but the home needed to improve some records and leadership systems.
Inspectors visited without warning on 14 June 2018. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and health professionals. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staff records, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found people were safe, medicines were handled properly, staff were trained, and people received kind and individual care. People had access to health professionals, suitable food, activities and support to maintain relationships.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Some records about mental capacity, best-interest decisions and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards were not completed consistently. Inspectors said this had not affected care, but the evidence was not always clear. The home had improved since earlier inspections and had met the regulations it had previously breached.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm, patient and meaningful interactions. People and relatives consistently described staff as kind and caring.
“People were supported by kind and caring staff.” from the report
Safe medicines and equipment
Medicines were locked away, records were well completed, and staff giving medicines had extra training. Equipment and safety checks were also maintained.
“The medicine administration record (MAR) charts were well completed and recorded when people had received their medicines.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's histories, interests and daily preferences. Care plans and activities were adjusted to individual choices.
“People were treated as individuals with their care and treatment being personalised to their wishes and preferences.” from the report
Good food and nutrition support
People praised the home-cooked food and choices. Staff monitored nutrition and adapted meals where people needed extra support.
“People were very complimentary of the food and choices provided to them.” from the report
Improvement since earlier inspections
The provider had addressed earlier concerns about safety, health and safety arrangements, and quality monitoring. The report says the previously breached regulations were now being met.
“At this inspection we found these regulations had been met and the service was rated 'Good' overall.” from the report
Incomplete decision-making records
needs fixingRecords about people's ability to make decisions and decisions made in their best interests were not always completed consistently. The report says there was no evidence this affected care, but important details were not always clearly recorded.
“Records relating to people's ability to make decisions and how decisions were made in their 'best interest' when they lacked capacity were not completed in a consistent way.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure capacity assessments and best-interest decisions are recorded fully and consistently?
- 02How are relatives and health professionals involved when a person cannot make a decision about their care?
- 03What quality checks do you carry out on care records, medicines and safety, and how do you act on any problems found?
- 04How would you support my relative's specific mobility, memory, nutrition or healthcare needs?
- 05What activities and support for friendships, family visits and personal interests would be available for my relative?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; the home was rated Good in four areas and Requires Improvement for Well-led. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 August 2018 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 Ashlodge
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 December 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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.