CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ashton
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People said they felt safe, risks were assessed and plans were in place to reduce them. Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the knowledge and skills to support people, and care plans reflected individual needs and professional advice. The provider was asked to review training against current best practice guidance.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with care, kindness, dignity and respect. They were involved in decisions, and staff supported their privacy and independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and reviewed when people's needs changed. People had activities based on their interests, contact with important people and support to take part in community life.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was described as open, inclusive and well managed. Audits covered care plans, medicines, health and safety, and actions were taken when issues were found.
What inspectors found, March 2020
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with training and recruitment checks to review.
The inspection took place on 21 January 2020. One inspector spoke with all three people living at the home, staff, the manager and the provider. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, training records, a recruitment file and other records. Relatives also gave feedback after the visit.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that people felt safe, received the health care they needed, and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
People had choice and control over their care, activities, meals and daily lives. Staff knew people well and supported independence, relationships, community activities and employment. The home had effective checks on quality and an open culture.
The provider was asked to review staff training against current best practice guidance. Inspectors also found missing information in one recruitment file, although this was obtained promptly after the inspection. The previous overall rating was also Good, published on 10 August 2017.
Choice and independence
The home supported people to make decisions, develop skills and become more independent. Activities, holidays, meals and daily plans reflected individual preferences.
“The service and staff strongly promoted choice and control, independence and inclusion.” from the report
Kind and respectful support
Inspectors observed respectful interactions and found that people were treated with kindness, dignity and respect.
“We saw staff were very skilled working with people living at the service with all interactions seen being respectful and caring.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans were based on assessments, included people's choices and were reviewed when needs changed. Staff knew how people liked things done.
“Each care plan was based on a full assessment, included individual preferences and choices, and demonstrated the person had been involved in drawing up their plan.” from the report
Safe medicines and staffing
Staffing levels supported people safely, and only trained and assessed staff administered medicines. Medicines records were up to date.
“Medicines administration record (MAR) sheets were up to date and had been completed by the staff administering the medicines.” from the report
Positive management
Staff felt supported and managers were approachable. The home used meetings, surveys and audits to gather views and improve care.
“There was an effective audit system in place that included audits of different aspects of the running of the service.” from the report
Staff training review
needs fixingInspectors recommended that the provider review its training against current best practice guidance for ongoing learning and development.
“We recommend the provider review the training provided in line with current best practice guidance in ongoing learning and development for adult social care staff.” from the report
Recruitment records
minorOne recruitment file had a two-year gap in employment history and did not show why a previous job had ended. The missing information was obtained promptly after the inspection.
“There was a two-year gap at the beginning of the employment history and verification of why they left a previous employment had not been obtained.” from the report
Communication records being updated
minorThe manager was still making sure people's communication needs were recorded in a way that met the Accessible Information Standard.
“The registered manager was aware of the specific requirements of the AIS and was in the process of ensuring the communication needs of people were documented in a way that meets the criteria of the standard.” from the report
- 01What changes have you made to staff training since inspectors recommended a review against current best practice guidance?
- 02How do you now check employment histories and other recruitment information before new staff work with residents?
- 03How are residents' communication needs recorded and shared, including in hospital passports?
- 04How would you support my relative to build independence, choose activities and take part in community life?
- 05How often will my relative's care plan be reviewed, and how will you involve them and our family in changes?
This was a planned inspection that looked at all five CQC questions, and the previous Good ratings were all retained. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 March 2020 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, August 2017
Ashton was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some formal staff supervision not happening often enough.
This was a comprehensive, announced inspection on 13 July 2017. One inspector spoke with both people living there, managers and staff, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines, training and other records.
The home was supporting two people, although it could support up to three people with learning disabilities and/or autistic spectrum disorder. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and supported to make choices, stay independent and take part in work, activities and relationships.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The home had been rated Good at the previous inspection and remained Good. Inspectors said it continued to meet all the fundamental standards of quality and safety.
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and supported them in a friendly and respectful way. People's privacy, dignity and confidentiality were protected.
“all interactions observed between staff and people living at the service were caring, friendly and respectful.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans were based on people's needs, likes and dislikes. People were involved in planning their care and in changes to it.
“People received support that was individualised to their personal preferences and needs.” from the report
Choice and independence
People chose meals, activities and how to spend their time. They were supported to stay independent and to try new activities.
“People could choose what they wanted to do and were also able to try out new activities when identified.” from the report
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff, with additional staffing based on people's needs and activities. Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely.
“Medicines administration records were up to date and had been completed by the staff administering the medicines.” from the report
Good monitoring
Weekly management audits and monthly trustee visits checked care, medicines, complaints, records and the premises. Actions from checks were recorded.
“The registered manager had an effective weekly audit system in place that included regular checks of the care plans, health action plans and medication records.” from the report
Formal supervision was not regular enough
needs fixingThe provider's policy expected formal supervision six times a year, but this was not being achieved at the inspection. The deputy manager planned changes to improve this.
“management had identified that this goal was not being met at the time of our inspection.” from the report
Mental capacity authorisations were still being sought
needs fixingThe home had identified that people might be deprived of their liberty. Applications had been made for the required assessments and authorisations, so families should ask about the current position.
“Applications had been made to the funding authorities for the required assessments and authorisations.” from the report
- 01How often is each staff member now receiving formal supervision, and how is this recorded?
- 02What is the current status of the required mental capacity assessments and authorisations?
- 03How will staffing levels change when people need extra support for activities or appointments?
- 04How are people's care plans updated when their mobility, health needs or independence changes?
- 05How are people involved in choosing and reviewing their activities, holidays and community visits?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, with evidence from people, staff, observations, care records, medicines checks and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 August 2017 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
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 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
78 live-in carers within about an hour of Wokingham
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 £1,020 to £1,260 a week. 71 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“I can truly say that Peter always put Dad at the centre of everything and I know that they found a great friendship in difficult times.”
“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.