CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ashring House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, October 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with minor record and equipment issues addressed during or after the inspection.
This was a planned inspection on 23 August 2019. One inspector spoke with people, staff, a relative and health and social care professionals. They reviewed care, medicines, staff and management records.
The home supported six people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found that care was personalised and that staff knew people well. People were treated with kindness, encouraged to make choices and supported to build independence.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The overall rating stayed Good, the same as at the previous inspection published in November 2016.
Personalised support
Staff knew people's likes, dislikes, communication methods and goals. Care plans focused on individual needs and independence.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw relaxed and caring interactions. People were supported with privacy, dignity and choice.
“People were treated with respect, kindness and compassion.” from the report
Community involvement
People were supported to use local amenities, follow their interests and maintain important relationships.
“Staff supported people to follow their interests and take part in activities.” from the report
Good staff support
There were enough staff, and staff received induction, training and regular supervision. Recruitment checks were completed.
“There were enough staff available to meet people's needs.” from the report
Learning from mistakes
The home recorded incidents and used them to reduce the chance of problems happening again, including after a medicines error.
“Lessons were learnt when things went wrong.” from the report
Mental capacity records
needs fixingSome records did not initially show the person's views and responses. The manager recognised this and reviewed the assessments immediately.
“We noted that these records did not always reflect the person's views and responses.” from the report
Replacement moving equipment
minorA mobile hoist had been checked and found to need replacement. It was not in use and a replacement had been ordered.
“This had been regularly checked, though not currently in use, it had recently found to be in need or replacement.” from the report
- 01Have the mental capacity assessments been kept up to date and do they clearly record each person's views and responses?
- 02Has the replacement mobile hoist arrived, and what equipment is available if someone needs help to move?
- 03How will you support my relative to develop independence and make everyday choices?
- 04How do staff understand the communication needs of someone who does not use speech?
- 05How are medicines errors or other incidents reviewed and shared with staff?
This was a planned inspection covering all five key questions, with the overall and individual ratings compared with the previous Good rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 October 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, November 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care across all five areas.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 October 2016. The home supported five adults with learning disabilities, although it was registered for up to six people. Inspectors spoke with one person, the manager and four care staff. They also observed care, reviewed records and spoke with two relatives and two healthcare professionals.
Inspectors found that people were safe and supported by enough suitably checked staff. Medicines were managed safely. Staff were trained, supervised and supported. People received food suited to their needs and had access to health services.
The report describes care that was kind and respectful. People and their relatives were involved in care planning. Staff supported individual choices, activities, relationships and independence. The home asked for people's views and used checks and audits to monitor the service.
The home was rated Good in every area: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This means the inspection found the service met the standards checked, with no breaches of regulations reported.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff on duty and saw that absences were covered. Recruitment checks were completed before staff started work.
“There were sufficient staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicine records showed that people received their medicines on time and at the right dose. Storage, balances and records were checked.
“People's medicines were managed safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported their privacy, dignity, choices and independence. Inspectors observed caring relationships.
“We observed staff had developed caring relationships with people and were attentive to them.” from the report
Individual activities
People were supported to take part in activities based on their interests, abilities and preferences, including activities outside the home.
“People received the support they required to pursue their interests and were encouraged to take part in activities of their choice.” from the report
Good oversight
The manager used audits, staff meetings, resident meetings and surveys to monitor the service and respond to feedback.
“The registered manager effectively used the systems and processes in place to monitor and evaluate the service.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you understand and respond to my relative's body language or behaviour if they cannot communicate verbally?
- 02What support would my relative receive for any swallowing, nutrition or hydration needs, and how would specialist advice be followed?
- 03How would you support my relative's preferred activities, relationships and independence?
- 04How many staff would usually be on duty, and how would extra support or staff absence be covered?
- 05How are decisions made if my relative cannot make a particular decision, and how are any Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards conditions followed?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five questions and the overall rating; inspectors reviewed records, observed care and spoke with people, staff, relatives and healthcare professionals. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 November 2016 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 Ashring House
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- October 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.