CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Ashminster House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. They found suitable risk assessments, enough staff, safe recruitment, safe medicines procedures and effective infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear management systems, regular audits, an open culture and good communication with people, relatives and staff.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Ashminster House rated Good; inspectors found safe, well-managed care and no evidence that the concerns prompting the inspection had harmed people.
This was an unannounced inspection by three inspectors on 31 August 2022. They spoke with 16 people, two relatives and six staff. They also reviewed care records, medicines records and records about how the home was managed.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. People said they felt safe and listened to. Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, safe recruitment, enough staff, accurate medicines records and effective infection control arrangements.
The inspection was partly prompted by concerns about staff practice. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm from this concern. The home had also been rated Good at the previous inspection, published on 8 September 2018.
People felt safe
People told inspectors they felt safe and listened to. Safeguarding concerns and accidents were investigated and actions were taken.
“People using the service told us they felt safe and listened to at Ashminster House.” from the report
Medicines were well managed
Inspectors found medicines were given safely and on time. Records were complete and medicines were stored and checked correctly.
“People were supported to receive their prescribed medicines on time and in a safe way.” from the report
Good oversight
The home had regular checks and audits. Staff knew who to report to, and the manager was available to people, relatives and staff.
“The provider had detailed systems of governance and the registered manager had daily oversight of this.” from the report
People's views were acted on
The home held meetings and used a feedback process to show what it had done in response to suggestions.
“There was a 'You said. We did' process in place.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you use the dependency tool to make sure there are enough staff for my relative's needs?
- 02How will you review my relative's risks and update their care plan when their needs change?
- 03How do you make sure medicines records stay complete and accurate, including records for creams and as-needed medicines?
- 04What action was taken after the concerns about staff practice that prompted this inspection?
- 05How can my relative and our family raise a concern, and how will we be told what action was taken?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection prevention and control; the other three key-question ratings were not assessed in this inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 September 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, September 2018
Rated Good; the home had improved from Requires improvement, with safe, kind and personalised care, but some people raised concerns about night staffing.
Inspectors visited without warning on 15 August 2018. They spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and other professionals. They observed care and checked care records, medicines, staff files, rotas, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were treated with kindness, their risks and medicines were managed safely, and staff knew their needs.
This was an improvement from the previous inspection in June 2017, when the home was rated Requires improvement and breached two regulations. At this inspection, those breaches had been resolved. Inspectors also found that previous recommendations about staffing, care plans, staff development and mental capacity had been acted on.
Improved safety checks
Risk assessments were more detailed and up to date than at the previous inspection. Personal emergency evacuation plans were in place, and accidents and incidents were reviewed for patterns.
“People were safer as risk assessments were comprehensive and up to date.” from the report
Safe medicines management
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded appropriately. Nurses had their competence checked, and audits were used to identify and address errors.
“The administration of people's medicines were managed well, keeping people safe from the risks associated with prescribed medicines.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm interactions between staff and people. People were supported to make choices, keep their independence and maintain their privacy and dignity.
“There was clear evidence of the caring approach of staff.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans covered people's individual health, personal care, communication, nutrition, pain and interests. Relatives helped provide life-history information and were involved in reviews.
“Care plans recorded the person centred detail to make sure staff had the information they needed to deliver the care and support identified through assessment.” from the report
Stronger management oversight
The home had regular checks covering care plans, medicines, accidents, complaints, maintenance, cleaning and other areas. Action plans named who should act and when.
“The provider and registered manager had implemented a clear process for monitoring the quality and safety of the service where areas for improvement had been identified and action taken.” from the report
Night staffing and call bells
needs fixingSome people felt there were not always enough staff at night, and one person said call bell response times depended on how busy staff were. Inspectors found staffing levels suitable during the inspection, but the manager said the night-time feedback would be looked into.
“although some people thought there were not always enough staff at night, we found that the provider used a reputable dependency assessment tool to calculate staffing levels.” from the report
Staff supervision
needs fixingStaff supervision had improved but was not yet as regular as the provider expected. The manager had an action plan to schedule one-to-one supervision and appraisals.
“The registered manager told us they were aware staff supervision was not yet as regular as expected by the provider” from the report
Equality and diversity information
minorThe manager said the home would support people's equality and diversity needs, but recognised this was an area for continued improvement. The report does not describe a specific harm arising from this.
“The registered manager said they would support any person's needs on an equal basis, however was aware this was an area that would continuously improve.” from the report
- 01How many care and nursing staff are scheduled on each unit during the night, and how do you cover sickness or an unfilled shift?
- 02What is the usual response time to a call bell, and how do you check that people receive help promptly?
- 03How often does each staff member now receive one-to-one supervision, and have the planned appraisals been completed?
- 04How are a new resident's equality, cultural, religious or personal needs recorded and reflected in their care plan?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in creating and reviewing the care plan?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall rating, including care, nursing, premises, records, staffing and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 8 September 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 Ashminster House
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- September 2022Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 February 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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.