CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Ashwood Care Centre
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe equipment and appropriate infection-control arrangements. Medicine records were generally safe, but handwritten changes were not always checked and signed by two staff members.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and care was supported by trained staff. The home worked with health professionals, monitored nutrition and hydration, and followed the law on consent and best-interest decisions.
- Caring?
- Good
- Inspectors saw kind, patient and respectful care. People were offered choices, involved in care planning and supported to maintain their privacy, dignity, independence and religious practices.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences and were reviewed. People were supported with communication, activities, family contact, visits, complaints and end-of-life care.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a positive culture and effective checks on care quality. Managers acted on complaints and incidents, involved people and staff in decisions, and had made improvements to the environment, staffing structures, care planning and monitoring systems.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Ashwood Care Centre was rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, personalised care, with a small medicines-recording shortfall.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 June 2021. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives and staff. They observed care, checked care plans and medicines, and reviewed records about staffing, training, complaints, accidents and safeguarding.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, good infection control, personalised care and positive relationships between people and staff.
There was one medicines-recording issue. Handwritten changes to medicine records were not always checked and signed by two staff members. The manager agreed to make sure this happened in future. The previous comprehensive inspection in 2018 also rated the home Good. A targeted infection-control inspection in 2020 did not award ratings.
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw staff treating people gently and patiently. Staff knew people's preferences and offered choices while protecting their dignity.
“We observed kind and caring interactions. Staff were patient with people, gentle and considerate of their needs.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's needs, preferences and communication requirements. Relatives were invited to take part in care reviews.
“People received personalised care which met their needs and reflected their preferences.” from the report
Good health and nutrition support
Staff monitored people's health, weight, food and fluid intake. They worked with doctors and other professionals when additional support was needed.
“The staff worked closely with other agencies in making referrals for additional support and alerting medical staff to changes in people's needs.” from the report
Positive management
Inspectors found effective audits, communication and action planning. Staff said managers were approachable and they could ask for help.
“The provider had effective systems for monitoring and improving the quality of the service.” from the report
Family contact and activities
The home helped people keep in touch with relatives during restrictions and arranged safe visits. People also had planned activities and support for special occasions.
“Since the easing of national restrictions of care home visits, the provider had set up an effective system where families and friends could book visits, and these were managed safely.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingChanges in medicine doses were correctly copied onto records, but the handwritten changes were not always checked and signed by two staff members. The manager agreed to improve this process.
“However, these handwritten changes were not always checked and signed by two members of staff.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure handwritten changes to medicine records are checked and signed by two staff members?
- 02How are staffing levels reviewed when people's needs change?
- 03How will you involve our family member and us in care-plan reviews?
- 04What activities and visiting arrangements are currently available?
- 05How do you monitor food, drink, weight and swallowing needs?
This was an unannounced planned comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control; a previous targeted inspection in 2020 looked only at infection control and did not award ratings. This explanation was written from the published report of 22 July 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, November 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control arrangements during the COVID-19 pandemic.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 6 November 2020. It followed concerns about infection prevention and control.
Inspectors found suitable cleaning, protective equipment and infection control procedures. Staff had relevant training, and managers checked that procedures were being followed.
The home used separate units, dedicated cleaning staff and isolation arrangements. It also carried out regular testing and daily health checks, and adapted care when people's health changed.
The service was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection looked specifically at infection prevention and control rather than giving an overall quality rating.
Infection control
The home had procedures for infection control, regular checks, effective cleaning and suitable PPE. Staff had training in COVID-19, infection control and PPE use.
“The provider had suitable procedures for infection control and prevention, including regular audits, effective cleaning regimes and personal protective equipment (PPE) for staff.” from the report
Safer layout
The home used separate units and staff worked in specific units. Cleaning, laundry and clinical waste arrangements were organised to reduce infection risks.
“The environment was set out to minimise the risk of the spread of infection.” from the report
Health monitoring
People had regular health observations, including oxygen levels, temperatures and blood pressure. Care was increased or adapted when checks showed a change.
“The staff carried out daily observations on people's well-being, such as oxygen levels, temperature checks and blood pressure.” from the report
Family visiting
Visiting arrangements allowed families to see people who were very unwell or dying, while taking steps to reduce infection risks.
“Families were able to visit people who were very unwell and those who were dying.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How have your infection prevention and control procedures changed since the November 2020 inspection?
- 02How do you currently manage visits when there is an infection risk or outbreak?
- 03How are staff trained and checked on using PPE and following infection control procedures?
- 04How do you monitor residents' health and respond when daily checks show a change?
- 05How do you safely manage admissions, isolation and testing?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control measures only; the service was inspected but not rated and the other four questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 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 Ashwood Care Centre
4 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2021Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2020Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- June 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 4 October 2017.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Hillingdon
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 £1,320 a week. 81 can care for a couple. 11 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.”
“She has an unusual combination of kindness and firmness, is quite unflappable, physically strong, extremely savvy”
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.