CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 1 Ashley Green
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, good infection control and safe medicines systems. One as-required medicine lacked a protocol, but management addressed this during the inspection.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs, capacity and health were assessed. Staff were trained and supported, and people were helped with nutrition, healthcare and communication.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff treated people with kindness, respect and dignity. People were supported to make choices, communicate in different ways and develop their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Support plans were detailed, personalised and regularly reviewed. People took part in activities at home and in the community, and relatives knew how to complain.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found open management, regular audits and good partnership working. The home was introducing a priority rating system so important issues could be dealt with first.
What inspectors found, January 2020
SENSE - 1 Ashley Green was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with two small issues addressed or under review.
This was a planned inspection over two days. The first day was unannounced and the second was announced. The inspector spent time with people, observed care, spoke with staff and relatives, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines support, detailed care plans, kind relationships and good support for communication, health, activities and independence.
There were two areas needing attention. One as-required medicine did not have a written protocol, but this was addressed during the inspection. It was also unclear whether some relatives had the legal authority to consent to photographs, and the home was reviewing this practice.
Personalised care plans
Support plans clearly described what mattered to each person, how they communicated and how staff should support them.
“People's support plans were very detailed, personalised and easy to read.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Inspectors observed warm and appropriate interactions. Relatives also spoke positively about how staff treated their family members.
“All interactions we observed were kind, caring, positive and appropriate.” from the report
Communication support
Staff understood people's individual communication methods, including signing, objects of reference and different sounds.
“Staff could describe the ways in which people communicated their needs.” from the report
Meaningful activities
People took part in varied activities, including outings, community activities, hobbies and holidays.
“People participated in a range of social and leisure activities including meals out, bowling, carriage riding, days out at the beach and holidays.” from the report
Good safety arrangements
The home had risk assessments, emergency plans, safe recruitment and systems for checking medicines, accidents and the building.
“People's care files contained detailed risk assessments linked to their support plans.” from the report
Medicine protocol missing
needs fixingOne as-required medicine did not have a protocol explaining when staff should use it. Management addressed this during the inspection.
“However, one of these medicines did not have a protocol in place to guide staff on their use.” from the report
Photography consent was unclear
needs fixingSome relatives had signed consent for photographs, but the home had not established whether they had the legal authority to make that decision. The practice was being reviewed.
“It was unclear if they had the legal right to make this decision for people.” from the report
- 01What written protocol now guides staff on using each person's as-required medicine?
- 02How do you confirm who can legally consent to photographs for a person who cannot make that decision themselves?
- 03How do you make sure agency staff understand each person's communication methods and support plan?
- 04How are the most important issues identified and prioritised through the new audit system?
- 05What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative?
This was a full inspection of the care home, including accommodation and care, and all five CQC questions were rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 January 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, June 2017
SENSE - 1 Ashley Green was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some agency staffing and garden maintenance issues.
Inspectors visited the home without warning on 24 May 2017. They observed care, spoke with staff and a relative, looked at parts of the home, and checked care records, staff files and management records. Five people lived there at the time.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found that medicines were now managed safely, after concerns at the previous inspection. Risk assessments and records about people's health had also improved.
People were supported by trained staff who understood their communication needs, choices and routines. Inspectors saw respectful care, support with food and healthcare, opportunities for activities and independence, and systems for complaints and quality checks.
There were some agency staff because permanent workers had recently left. Inspectors also found some garden waste that needed removing. They did not report any breaches of regulations or enforcement action.
Medicines were managed safely
The home had improved its medicines systems since the previous inspection. Records, staff competency checks and audits supported safe administration.
“We found the improvements implemented meant people received their medicines safely and medicines were managed according to the latest best practice guidance.” from the report
Personalised communication
Staff used different approaches to understand people who communicated in different ways. Care plans recorded individual routines, preferences and support needs.
“Care workers clearly understood and had developed a variety of resources that helped people to communicate their preferences and choices” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw a calm, homely atmosphere and respectful relationships. Staff protected people's dignity and privacy.
“We observed care workers and management were caring and compassionate towards people.” from the report
Support for independence
People were encouraged to do things for themselves, including preparing drinks and taking part in activities. Staff used positive risk-taking to avoid doing everything for people.
“We saw this support gave the person a chance to do something for themselves and not have everything done for them.” from the report
Good involvement and oversight
Families and advocates were involved in care planning and reviews. The home used surveys, meetings and audits to gather views and monitor the service.
“The registered provider sought the views of people who lived at the home and their relatives.” from the report
Reliance on agency staff
needs fixingTwo of the three care workers on duty during the inspection were agency workers because permanent staff had recently left. Inspectors said the agency workers were regular and knew the people living there, but this is worth checking if consistency matters to your relative.
“We were concerned that two out of the three care workers on duty at the time of our inspection were agency care workers” from the report
Garden maintenance
minorSome garden waste needed removing. The deputy manager said a gardener was due to return and the work would be completed.
“We observed some external areas of the home that required attention including removal of some garden waste.” from the report
- 01How many permanent and agency care workers are currently working at the home?
- 02How are new agency workers inducted, shadowed and checked as competent before working alone with residents?
- 03Has the garden waste and other external maintenance identified during the inspection been dealt with?
- 04How often are medicines audits and staff competency checks now completed?
- 05How will my relative and our family be involved in reviewing the care plan and communication methods?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service, covering all five CQC questions; the previous inspection in March 2015 had rated Safe as requiring improvement, while the other areas were Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 June 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 1 Ashley Green
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2020Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2015GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 29 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leeds
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. 89 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Took his time to learn about me read my care plan and to listen to me. great companionship with lots of laughing.”
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.