CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Ashville Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and well-managed care, with clear improvements since the previous inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection. Inspectors visited the home on 15 March 2023, reviewed information remotely on 17 March, and completed the inspection on 22 March. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care, medicine, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe, Caring and Well-led were also rated Good. Inspectors found that people received person-centred care, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels met people's needs, and the home was clean, maintained and following infection control procedures.
The previous inspection rated the home Requires Improvement and found a breach relating to governance. Inspectors found that improvements had been made, including refurbishment and stronger quality checks. The home was no longer in breach of that regulation.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, monitored and given safely. Staff had relevant training and checks, and medicines were reviewed when they affected a person's wellbeing.
“People received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and personal care
Inspectors saw warm and reassuring interactions. Staff knew people's preferences and supported their choices about food, drinks, activities and where to spend time.
“People were supported to express their views and were involved in decision making.” from the report
Enough familiar staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe. The home reported that it did not use agency staff, and relatives valued the familiarity this provided.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Improved management
The home had improved since the previous inspection. Leaders were involved in care, staff understood their roles, and quality checks were being used to identify and address shortfalls.
“There were effective quality assurance systems in place which ensured any shortfalls were identified and actioned to drive improvement.” from the report
Improved environment
The refurbishment programme had been completed. Inspectors found the home comfortable, homely, clean and well maintained.
“The home had been fully refurbished providing a comfortable and homely environment.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you assess and review my relative's risks, especially if their needs or behaviour change?
- 02If my relative needs medicine hidden in food or drink, what documentation and reviews will be in place?
- 03How will my relative and our family be involved in decisions about their care and care plan?
- 04How do your audits and surveys identify problems, and how will you tell us what action was taken?
- 05What improvements have been maintained since the previous inspection's governance breach?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Caring and Well-led; Effective and Responsive were not inspected in this report, and the report says ratings for uninspected questions carry over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 April 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 2020
Ashville Court: not rated in this targeted inspection; the previous Requires Improvement rating remained, although inspectors found improvements and no current breach.
This was a targeted inspection, not a full inspection. Inspectors checked infection prevention and control, and whether improvements had been made to the home's management and quality checks. They spoke with five people, seven relatives and four staff, and reviewed records.
Inspectors were assured that infection control arrangements were in place. This included safe admissions, use of protective equipment, testing, hygiene, social distancing and plans for managing outbreaks. People and relatives said they were happy with the care, and people appeared comfortable and well cared for.
The previous inspection found a breach of Regulation 17 about good governance. This inspection found that enough improvements had been made and the home was no longer in breach. However, the inspection did not review the full service, so the previous Requires Improvement ratings were not changed.
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had systems to prevent and manage infection, including safe use of protective equipment and testing.
“We were assured that the provider was making sure infection outbreaks can be effectively prevented or managed.” from the report
Improved management checks
Quality checks had been strengthened since the previous inspection. Audits and reviews were being used to identify and address problems.
“Robust quality assurance systems were in place, which addressed the shortfalls identified at the last inspection.” from the report
Medicines oversight
Staff had completed medicines training and checks of their competence. Medicines records were personalised and audits were taking place.
“Staff had completed medicines training and had their competency assessed.” from the report
Positive experience reported
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Inspectors said people looked well cared for and comfortable.
“People and relatives were happy with the care provided.” from the report
Previous rating still applies
needs fixingThe home was not given a new overall rating because this was a limited follow-up inspection. The previous Requires Improvement rating remained in place.
“The overall rating for the service has not changed following this targeted inspection and remains requires improvement.” from the report
- 01What improvements have been made in the areas not covered by this targeted inspection?
- 02How are quality checks now used to identify and act on problems?
- 03How often are medicines audits and staff competency checks completed?
- 04What arrangements are in place for infection control if there is an outbreak?
- 05When will the next comprehensive inspection take place, and what will it assess?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control and specific governance concerns; the other areas and the previous ratings were not fully reassessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 November 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.
Every inspection of Ashville Court
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementCaring: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2019Inadequatedown from Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- October 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 October 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
99 live-in carers within about an hour of Bradford
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. 87 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
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.