CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Ashton Lodge of Sunbury-on-Thames
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2021
Ashton Lodge of Sunbury-on-Thames was inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection prevention and control arrangements.
Inspectors visited the home on 13 April 2021. This was an announced, targeted inspection during the coronavirus pandemic. They looked at infection prevention and control measures.
Inspectors found good practice in the use of personal protective equipment, cleaning, testing, visiting arrangements and the safe admission or isolation of people. Staff had enough protective equipment and cleaning products.
The report says the home was meeting infection control expectations, but it was not given an overall rating. The Safe question was also recorded as inspected but not rated.
PPE and staff training
Staff were seen wearing PPE correctly. A training video and other training helped staff follow the right procedures.
“We saw staff wore their PPE correctly and it was evident this video as well as the other training staff had received had been effective.” from the report
Cleaning and supplies
The home had enough PPE and cleaning products. Extra cleaning was introduced for frequently touched areas.
“Staff said there had never been a shortage of PPE or cleaning products to assist them in keeping the service free from infection.” from the report
Visits and family contact
The home offered relatives a choice of visit types and had previously used different ways for people to keep in touch with family.
“Arrangements for people to visit their loved ones had been established and a choice of the type of visit was offered to relatives.” from the report
Isolation and testing
A dedicated area and staff group were used for people who tested positive or were newly admitted. Testing was available regularly.
“A specific isolation area had been established which was staffed by a dedicated cohort of nursing and care staff.” from the report
Staff support
Staff said they felt supported by colleagues and the home's leaders. The manager was often working on the floor helping with care tasks.
“Staff said they felt supported by their team members and the registered manager and clinical lead had been "Fantastic” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are PPE supplies, cleaning products and high-touch cleaning monitored now?
- 02How are visits arranged now, and what choices are available to relatives?
- 03What happens if a new resident arrives or someone tests positive for COVID-19?
- 04How often are residents and staff tested now?
- 05What full CQC ratings or more recent inspection findings should we read alongside this targeted report?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control under the Safe question; the service was inspected but not rated and the other four questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 April 2021 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, July 2019
Ashton Lodge of Sunbury-on-Thames was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found effective care and good food, but concerns about staffing, dignity, infection control and management.
This was an unannounced, scheduled comprehensive inspection on 8 April 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and a healthcare professional. They reviewed care records, medicines, recruitment, training, safety checks and quality monitoring.
People generally spoke positively about the staff, food and care, and said they felt safe. Medicines were managed well, staff training was considered suitable, and people had access to healthcare. However, staff deployment was not always organised well, infection control procedures were not always followed, and some staff did not treat people with enough dignity and respect.
Inspectors also found that some care plans were inaccurate or out of date. Legal requirements were not consistently followed when restrictions were placed on people. The home had made some improvements since its previous Requires Improvement rating in February 2018, but more work was needed to make these changes consistent and lasting. Six recommendations were made.
Positive experiences
People and relatives gave positive feedback about staff, food and care. People also said they felt safe at the home.
“People gave positive feedback about staff, the food and the care they received.” from the report
Medicines
Inspectors found good medicines administration processes and no gaps in the medicines administration records they checked.
“We found no gaps on people's MARs meaning that people had been given their prescribed medicines.” from the report
Training and health support
Staff said training and supervision were good. Inspectors saw staff use hoists competently, and records showed involvement from healthcare professionals.
“Staff worked well together and with other agencies to provide effective care.” from the report
Complaints handling
The home had a complaints policy and the complaints reviewed had been taken seriously, investigated and resolved.
“We read that each had been taken seriously, an apology given, and an investigation and resolution found.” from the report
Staffing at busy times
seriousStaff numbers matched the planned rota, but inspectors saw poor deployment during a busy morning. Some people and relatives also reported long waits for help.
“Two people with a high level of needs were being attended to at the same time by one staff member.” from the report
Infection control
seriousSome sluice rooms were not used or arranged safely, and inspectors found dirty items and an unpleasant smell. The home provided evidence of actions taken after the inspection.
“In another sluice room the sink was also not being used, despite dirty laundry being in the bins and we noted a soiled incontinence pad sitting on top of the cleaning machine.” from the report
Dignity and respect
needs fixingInspectors saw several examples of staff dismissing people's wishes or responding insensitively. One person was given food before they were fully awake and appeared distressed.
“People were not always seen to be cared for or treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Legal rights
seriousSome restrictions did not have the required decision-specific capacity assessments or best-interests decisions. One relative had signed consent forms without legal authority to do so.
“People's legal rights were not consistently supported or protected in relation to potential restrictive practices.” from the report
Care records
needs fixingSome care plans contained conflicting information or had not been updated when people's needs changed. This could make it harder for staff to provide consistent care.
“Although care plans contained good information, we found work was needed to ensure that everything contained within the care plan was accurate and up to date.” from the report
Management oversight
needs fixingThe home carried out regular checks, but these had not prevented all the shortfalls found. Inspectors said recent improvements needed to be embedded and sustained.
“However, although the provider's senior staff as well as the registered provider had carried out quality monitoring checks since our last inspection we identified shortfalls at this inspection.” from the report
- 01How are staff deployed during busy periods, especially in the morning, and how quickly do they respond to call bells?
- 02What checks now show that sluice rooms, dirty laundry and cleaning equipment are being managed safely?
- 03How are mental capacity assessments and best-interests decisions completed before restrictions are used?
- 04How do managers monitor that people are treated with dignity and that staff respond properly to requests for personal care?
- 05How are care plans checked and updated when a person's mobility, communication or daily routine changes?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, and it checked both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 July 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 Ashton Lodge of Sunbury-on-Thames
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- April 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
Read what inspectors found at Ashton Lodge of Sunbury-on-Thames →
- July 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Ashton Lodge of Sunbury-on-Thames →
- April 2018Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- February 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 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
77 live-in carers within about an hour of Surrey
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 £1,250 a week. 66 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Without his support we wouldn't have been able to navigate bringing and keeping Dad at home.”
“Not only has she looked after him beautifully, she has also been great company for him with lively conversation, kindness and humour.”
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.