CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ashmill Residential Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention and control procedures were being followed. This included safe use of PPE, testing, visitor arrangements, cleaning and managing infection outbreaks.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- 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?
- Requires improvement
- This area was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control arrangements during a targeted visit.
The inspection took place on 27 November 2020 and was announced. It was a targeted inspection focused on infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic.
Inspectors found that staff used personal protective equipment correctly, cleaning routines were in place and the home appeared clean and hygienic. People were supported to keep in touch with loved ones by video calls.
The inspectors were assured that the home managed visitors, social distancing, admissions, testing, outbreaks and its infection control policy safely. The service was inspected but not rated, so this visit did not give an overall quality rating.
PPE and infection control
Staff understood which PPE was needed for different tasks and used it in line with guidance.
“Staff wore personal protective equipment (PPE) in line with guidance.” from the report
Clean environment
Regular cleaning was taking place and the home appeared clean and hygienic. Rooms were ventilated daily.
“Regular cleaning routines were in place and the premises appeared clean and hygienic.” from the report
Keeping in touch
People were supported to stay in contact with loved ones using video calls. The home had also considered safe visiting for someone receiving end of life care.
“People were supported to keep in touch with loved ones using video calls.” from the report
Pandemic planning
People's records included information about their individual needs relating to COVID-19.
“People's records included a section about COVID-19.” from the report
Further development suggested
minorInspectors signposted the provider to resources to develop its infection prevention and control approach. The report does not say that this was a breach.
“We have also signposted the provider to resources to develop their approach.” from the report
- 01What changes, if any, were made after inspectors signposted resources to develop the infection prevention and control approach?
- 02What are the current arrangements for visitors, including visits for people receiving end of life care?
- 03How are people and staff currently tested for infections?
- 04How are people's individual infection prevention needs recorded and reviewed?
- 05What are the home's current CQC ratings for Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under Safe; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 December 2020 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, March 2020
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, responsive care, but medicines, risk management and quality checks needed improvement.
This was an unannounced inspection over two days. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and a health professional. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files and management records.
People were treated kindly and with respect. Their care was personalised, communication needs were understood, and people had access to activities and healthcare. However, there were problems with medicines records, unlocked hazardous areas, some food and fluid records, and staff understanding of legal authorisations.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were also rated Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were rated Good. This was the second consecutive Requires Improvement rating, although Caring had improved from Requires Improvement to Good.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors observed calm, kind interactions and found that people's privacy and dignity had improved since the last inspection.
“We observed kind and caring interactions.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff knew people's likes, dislikes, communication needs and individual risks. Care plans recorded personal preferences and supported people to make choices.
“Care records included information about people's likes, dislikes and what was important to them.” from the report
Healthcare support
The home worked with healthcare professionals and made prompt referrals when people needed further support.
“One person had recently been discharged from hospital and staff had made a prompt referral to the district nursing team for support and equipment relating to pressure care.” from the report
Improved dignity
The report found improvement since the previous inspection. Staff knocked before entering rooms and provided personal care in private.
“At the last inspection care staff did not always respect people's privacy and dignity. We found this had improved.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousRecords did not always show which variable dose had been given. Guidance was missing for one person and there was a gap in monitoring the medicines fridge temperature.
“One person was prescribed a variable dose of one or two tablets. Staff were not recording how many tablets were given.” from the report
Hazardous areas left unlocked
seriousA cupboard with hazardous cleaning materials and a refurbishment room with power tools were unlocked and unattended during the inspection. The issues were fixed when brought to the manager's attention.
“During our inspection we observed staff had left a cupboard containing hazardous cleaning materials unlocked.” from the report
Weak quality monitoring
seriousThe home's systems did not reliably identify and fix problems. Inspectors found continuing gaps in records, including incomplete food and fluid monitoring charts.
“There were insufficient systems in place to monitor and improve the quality of the service.” from the report
Staff awareness of authorisations
needs fixingStaff had received relevant training but were not sure which people had Deprivation of Liberty authorisations in place. The manager had also previously made applications for people assessed as having capacity.
“However, they were not sure which people had DoLs authorisations in place.” from the report
Mealtime support
needs fixingSome staff stood over people while helping them eat. Inspectors said this was not respectful.
“Some areas of people's dining experience needed improvement such as the positioning of some staff whilst they supported people with their meal.” from the report
Activities could be cancelled
minorAlthough people generally enjoyed the activities, some said they wanted to go out more often. One person said plans could not go ahead when staff could not accompany them.
“I make plans to do something and then something crops up and the staff can't come with me, which means I can't go.” from the report
- 01What has been changed to make sure variable medicines doses are recorded accurately every time?
- 02How are hazardous cleaning materials, tools and other dangerous items now kept locked and safely monitored?
- 03How do you check that food and fluid charts are completed fully and acted on when concerns arise?
- 04How do staff know which people have current Deprivation of Liberty authorisations and what conditions apply?
- 05How will you make sure planned outings and activities do not get cancelled because staff are unavailable?
This was an unannounced inspection of the care home covering all five CQC questions; the service was also registered for personal care in people's own homes, but had not undertaken that activity. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 March 2020 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 Ashmill Residential Care Home
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- December 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Ashmill Residential Care Home →
- March 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Ashmill Residential Care Home →
- January 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2014
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 11 September 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 Birmingham
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 £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“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.