CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ashridge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People's risks were assessed and there were enough staff to meet individual needs and keep people safe. Medicines were managed safely, and inspectors found no gaps in the three medicine records they checked.
- Effective?
- Good
- People received support that met their health needs, including help from health and social care professionals. Food was adapted for people with swallowing difficulties, although inspectors noted that dietary advice was sometimes counter-productive for one person.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, dignity and respect. People were involved in decisions, supported to express their choices and helped to maintain their independence and relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans had become more structured and person-centred, with people involved in reviews. People were supported with accessible information, activities, community life and contact with relatives.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager was described as approachable and the home had improved its checks on medicines, the environment and care quality. People, relatives and staff were invited to give feedback and take part in improving the home.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Ashridge rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some remaining questions about dietary advice and end-of-life experience.
The inspection took place over two visits. Inspectors reviewed information and the provider's action plan, observed care, spoke with nine people, six relatives and staff, and checked care plans, medicines records, recruitment files and quality records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough skilled staff, safe medicines management, clean surroundings, personalised care and good support for people's independence, activities and contact with family and friends.
The home had improved since the previous inspection, when it was rated Requires Improvement overall. Building work, care planning and quality checks had improved, and the report says the home was no longer in breach of the earlier regulations about premises and governance.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough skilled and experienced staff. Medicines were given consistently and the records checked were complete.
“We found that there were sufficient numbers of staff employed to meet peoples' individual needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People were treated as individuals and their choices, beliefs, communication needs and privacy were respected.
“We observed that people were cared for by kind, caring and understanding staff.” from the report
Independence and activities
People were supported to manage parts of daily life, use the community, attend activities and develop skills.
“Most people led an active social life in the community.” from the report
Improvements since the last inspection
The home had carried out refurbishment and improved care plans, staff training and quality checks. The earlier breaches about premises and governance had been resolved.
“People, their relatives and staff told us that there had been significant improvements made since our last inspection.” from the report
Good involvement
People and relatives were involved in care decisions, meetings, surveys and checks on the home.
“People who lived in the service took part in a quality walkabout.” from the report
Dietary advice
needs fixingInspectors found that dietary advice for one person was sometimes counter-productive because the person liked to eat less healthy food and chose their own snacks and drinks.
“However, their dietary advice was at times counter-productive as they liked to eat "junk" food and were independent in making their own snacks and drinks.” from the report
Limited end-of-life experience
needs fixingMost staff had little or no experience of end-of-life care. A community nurse provided support shortly before the inspection.
“Most staff in the service had little or no experience of caring for someone at the end of their life.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure dietary advice remains effective when someone chooses their own snacks and drinks?
- 02What end-of-life training have staff received since the inspection, and what support would be available if a resident became seriously ill?
- 03How do you make sure staff can communicate effectively with people who use British Sign Language or Makaton?
- 04How do you check that the improvements to care plans, the building and quality monitoring are being maintained?
- 05How are people and relatives involved in reviewing care plans and raising concerns?
This was a planned inspection that looked at the overall quality of the home, all five CQC questions, the premises and care provided, and progress against the previous action plan. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 June 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.
What inspectors found, February 2018
Ashridge was rated Requires Improvement for the second time; inspectors found concerns about staffing, cleanliness, care planning and management, with two legal breaches.
The inspection was unannounced and took place over two days. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, staff and managers. They reviewed care files, medicines records, recruitment records and quality checks.
The home was not consistently safe. Staffing sometimes fell below the provider's own baseline, the home was not clean, and some risks were not properly recorded or managed. Medicines were generally administered safely, but some bottles had not been dated when opened.
Inspectors also found that care plans were out of date or incomplete. People were not always involved in planning their care, activities did not meet everyone's needs, and the building needed repair and decoration. The home was rated Requires Improvement in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
Respect for privacy
Inspectors found that people's privacy, dignity and independence were respected and promoted. Staff also supported a couple's relationship and private time together.
“People's privacy, dignity and independence were respected and promoted.” from the report
Staff recruitment
The required checks were completed before staff worked with people. Staff also received induction, training and supervision.
“The required checks had been completed to ensure that staff were safe to work with people who live at the home.” from the report
Handling complaints
People knew how to complain and information was available in an accessible format. The two complaints received had been investigated and answered appropriately.
“Two complaints had been received and both had been investigated and responded to appropriately.” from the report
Short staffing
seriousStaffing levels sometimes fell below the provider's baseline and affected people's care and independence. The lack of staff able to drive the minibus also limited access to the community.
“One night this week there was no one to help me cook so I had cereal for tea.” from the report
Cleanliness and infection risk
seriousInspectors found dirt, stained bedding, offensive smells and poor arrangements for hand towels and soiled laundry. These issues increased the risk of infection.
“We saw that the home was dirty and had not been cleaned effectively.” from the report
Incomplete care planning
needs fixingCare plans did not fully describe people's needs, risks, communication methods or support plans. Some had not been reviewed for a long time.
“Care plans were out of date and had not been reviewed in a timely fashion.” from the report
Poor building condition
seriousThe home needed repair, decoration and maintenance. Inspectors found hazards, damp, mould, cracked flooring and areas that were not suitable for use.
“This was a breach of Regulation 15 Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014 Premises and equipment.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits were not completed promptly and did not always identify or fix problems. The report says this was a continuing breach of the good governance regulation.
“This was a continuing Breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) regulations 2014 Good Governance.” from the report
- 01What has been done to make sure there are enough suitably skilled staff on every shift, including staff who can drive the minibus?
- 02What cleaning and infection-control checks are now completed, and how are problems followed up?
- 03How are care plans reviewed so they accurately record each person's risks, communication needs, choices and professional advice?
- 04What repairs and improvements have been completed since the inspection, including work on damp, mould, heating, bathrooms and other hazards?
- 05How does the provider now check that concerns found by audits are fixed promptly?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions and the overall quality of the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 February 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 Ashridge
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- June 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 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
9 live-in carers within about an hour of Lincolnshire
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.
8 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Martin was more than a carer, he managed the home and became my uncle's best friend, enriching his life during his last few years.”
“Magda was always positive and proactive about trying new things to keep dad busy. She also introduced new ideas for keeping dad healthy.”
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.