CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Ashness View
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found robust risk assessments, safe medicines systems, safe recruitment and suitable infection prevention arrangements. Staff had training and medicines competency checks.
- Effective?
- Good
- The report does not give a rating for this question in this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- The report does not give a rating for this question in this inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans recorded people's likes, preferences and goals. People and relatives were involved in care planning, and people were supported to choose activities and maintain relationships.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective audits, visible and approachable management, staff support and opportunities for people, relatives and staff to influence the service.
What inspectors found, October 2023
Ashness View rated Good; inspectors found safe, personalised care and effective management, with improvements since the last inspection.
Inspectors made an unannounced visit on 4 September 2023. One inspector spoke with a person living at the home, staff, managers and a relative. They also checked care plans, risk plans, medicines records, staff files, policies and quality records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Responsive and Well-led were each rated Good. Inspectors found that risks and medicines were managed safely, care was personalised, people had choices, and staff understood people's needs.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published in 2019. The provider had been in breach of Regulation 12 at that time. Inspectors found that improvements had been made and the home was no longer in breach.
Risk and medicines
Risk assessments were detailed and staff understood how to reduce avoidable harm. Medicines were prescribed, given, recorded and stored through safe systems.
“People were supported by staff who followed systems and processes to prescribe, administer, record and store medicines safely.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's preferences and recovery goals. Staff knew people's needs well and involved people and relatives in reviews.
“Care and support were delivered in a person-centred way.” from the report
Choice and activities
People could choose activities, attend day services and keep in touch with family and friends. The report describes support for a holiday chosen by one person.
“People were supported to participate in their chosen social and leisure interests on a regular basis.” from the report
Management oversight
Regular audits and governance meetings helped identify and address issues. Staff said they felt supported and able to speak up.
“Governance processes were effective and helped to hold staff to account, keep people safe, and provide good quality care and support.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you update my relative's risk assessments as their needs change?
- 02How often will my relative's medicines records and staff competency checks be reviewed?
- 03How will my relative be involved in writing and reviewing their care plan?
- 04What activities and day services could be offered to match my relative's interests and preferences?
- 05How can my family raise a complaint or concern, and how will we be told what action was taken?
This inspection rated Safe, Responsive and Well-led; Effective and Caring were not rated in the report. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 October 2023 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, November 2019
Ashness View is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, effective care, but safety systems and oversight were not reliable enough, with one breach.
This was an unannounced inspection on 16 and 18 September 2019. Inspectors spoke with four people and five staff. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
People said they felt safe and staff treated them kindly. Inspectors found good care in the effective, caring and responsive areas. People were supported to make choices, stay independent, access healthcare and maintain relationships.
There were important safety problems. Risk assessments did not give staff enough detail about health emergencies, fire evacuation and other risks. A medicine record was incomplete, although the error was checked and corrected immediately.
The overall rating is Requires Improvement. Safe and well-led were rated Requires Improvement. Effective, caring and responsive were rated Good. The home was in breach of Regulation 12, and inspectors said its quality checks had not found the problems.
Kind and respectful staff
People said staff knew them well and treated them kindly. Inspectors saw staff speaking politely and respectfully.
“I know the staff, they know me…They are alright, they treat me good.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about their care and supported to do things for themselves, including cooking and choosing their daily activities.
“Rather than trying to impose things on me they know I can do things for myself like cook.” from the report
Support with health and relationships
The home worked with health and social care professionals. People were helped to access healthcare, maintain links with family and friends, and take part in interests and community activities.
“Records demonstrated people were supported to stay close to their families and friends and the provider facilitated transportation where required.” from the report
Open involvement
People and staff were involved in how the home was run. Resident meetings, surveys and independent advocacy were used to gather views.
“The provider involved people living at the service and staff about how the service was run.” from the report
Risk plans lacked detail
seriousPlans did not explain clearly enough how staff should manage diabetes emergencies, supervision needs or fire risks. Inspectors said this placed people at risk of harm.
“Risk assessments lacked the detail required to effectively mitigate risks.” from the report
Medicine record error
seriousOne medicine administration record had a gap, so it was unclear whether medicine had been taken as prescribed. The issue was investigated and corrected immediately, and a new handover system was introduced.
“We found a gap on one person's medicine administration record (MAR) meaning it was not clear whether or not the person had taken their medicine as prescribed.” from the report
Care plans were not personalised enough
needs fixingSome records were brief and did not give enough information about people's likes, dislikes and preferences. This could make it harder for staff providing cover to support people in the way they wanted.
“Care plans reviewed were mostly brief and did not contain sufficient information such as detailed likes and dislikes, choices, and preferences to provide person-centred care.” from the report
Quality checks missed problems
needs fixingThe home's audits had not identified or resolved the weaknesses in risk assessments and care records. The training programme was also still being completed.
“These were not always sufficiently robust and had not identified and rectified the issues we found in this inspection in relation to risk assessments and person centred care.” from the report
- 01What has been changed in the risk assessments for diabetes, high or low blood sugar, fire evacuation and smoking?
- 02How do you now check that medicines have been given correctly and that medicine records are complete?
- 03How have care plans been rewritten to record each person's preferences, likes, dislikes and daily choices?
- 04Has all staff training, including training about managing diabetes, now been completed?
- 05How do your current audits show that safety and care-record problems are found and fixed promptly?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; the previous rating was Good, but Safe remained Requires Improvement and Well-led deteriorated to Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 November 2019 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 Ashness View
5 rated inspections over 9 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- October 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 November 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Haringey
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. 75 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Over the time he spent with them he got to know our parents very well and became like part of the family, even joining in family celebrations.”
“Violet is a kind and positive, caring person and we are lucky and delighted to have her caring for our 96 year old grandmother.”
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.