CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ashmeade Residential Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was managing infection prevention and control. They found suitable arrangements for PPE, testing, admissions, hygiene, social distancing and managing possible outbreaks.
- 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, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control and safe arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was a targeted, announced inspection during England's Tier Four restrictions. Inspectors checked how the home prevented and controlled infections, rather than carrying out a full assessment of all aspects of care.
Inspectors found regular testing, suitable personal protective equipment, handwashing and cleaning arrangements. People were tested before admission and isolated afterwards in line with local guidance.
The home had enough staff to provide continuity of support. People were helped to keep in touch with relatives and friends using social media and electronic tablets. The service was inspected but not rated.
Testing and admissions
Staff were tested weekly and residents every 28 days. New residents were tested before admission and isolated after arriving.
“The registered manager insisted people were tested before admission.” from the report
Clean environment
The home was clean and hygienic, with deep cleaning carried out on a revolving schedule.
“The home was clean and hygienic.” from the report
Contact with relatives
People were supported to contact relatives and friends through social media and electronic tablets. Visits had taken place where appropriate, although restrictions were in force during the inspection.
“People's mental wellbeing had been promoted by innovative use of social media and electronic tablets so people could contact their relatives and friends.” from the report
Staff support and continuity
Inspectors found enough staff to provide continuity and safeguards if there was a staff shortage. Staff had received COVID-19 training and supervision.
“There were sufficient staff to provide continuity of support and ensure safeguards were in place should there be a staff shortage.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How often are residents and staff tested now, and what happens if a test is positive?
- 02What are the current arrangements for visits and helping residents keep in touch with relatives?
- 03How are new residents tested and supported during any isolation period?
- 04How often are residents' rooms and shared areas deep-cleaned now?
- 05How do you maintain staffing levels and continuity if staff are absent?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; the other areas were not assessed and the report gives no ratings for them. This explanation was written from the published report of 19 February 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, May 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe care, with some medicine records needing improvement.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 27 and 29 March 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and health professionals. They also reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files, complaints and safety checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable training and care that reflected people's needs and choices.
There were two medicine-record problems. One person's allergies were missing from their medicine record, and one liquid medicine had not been dated when opened. The manager fixed these during the inspection, but CQC recommended reviewing medicine guidance and practice.
The home had also acted during the inspection to improve how it followed the Accessible Information Standard. The overall Good rating continued from the previous inspection, and inspectors found no serious risks or concerns.
Kind and respectful staff
People and relatives said staff were kind and caring. Inspectors observed discreet, sensitive support that respected privacy and dignity.
“People and their relatives told us the staff who supported them were kind and caring.” from the report
Personalised care
Care files included people's needs, risks, preferences and abilities. Staff supported people to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
“Each care file was personalised and contained information about what people were able to do for themselves, what support was needed and how this should be provided by staff.” from the report
Activities and choice
People could take part in activities in the home and community, including crafts, exercises, trips and celebrations. People and relatives were happy with the activities available.
“People were supported to take part in a variety of activities in the home and the community.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingOne person's allergies were missing from their medicine record and one liquid medicine had not been dated when opened. The manager corrected both issues during the inspection, but the medicine audits had not identified them.
“One person's allergies had not been included on their MAR.” from the report
Communication standards
minorThe home was not meeting every part of the Accessible Information Standard at the time of inspection. The manager said action was taken during the inspection.
“We found that although not all aspects of the Standard were being met, people's communication needs had been assessed and people were receiving appropriate support.” from the report
Choice about getting up
minorOne person said staff had pressured them on one occasion to get up earlier than they wanted. The manager said staff would be reminded that people could choose what time to get up.
“One person told us they had felt pressured by staff on one occasion to get up earlier than they would have liked to.” from the report
- 01How have you checked that every person's allergies are recorded correctly on their medicine administration record?
- 02How do you make sure liquid medicines are dated when they are opened?
- 03What changes have you made to medicine audits and staff medicine training since this inspection?
- 04How do you record and meet each person's communication needs, including needs for large print or braille?
- 05How do you make sure people choose when they get up and are not pressured to follow a routine?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC areas, and the previous Good ratings were reviewed and continued. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 May 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 Ashmeade Residential Home
2 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- May 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 6 January 2011.
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
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
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. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
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.