CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Shaftesbury Ashley Place
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People told inspectors they felt safe, and staff understood safeguarding responsibilities. There were enough staff, suitable recruitment checks, safe medicine systems and effective infection control.
- Effective?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward to calculate the overall rating.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward to calculate the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was carried forward to calculate the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management and leadership were inconsistent. Inspectors found problems with communication, agency staff's understanding of people, and support plans for people's goals.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Shaftesbury Ashley Place was rated Good overall, but inspectors found inconsistent leadership and communication that Requires Improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 13 December 2022. One inspector and an Expert by Experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and professionals. They reviewed care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. There were enough staff, recruitment checks were completed, medicines were administered safely, and infection control arrangements were effective.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Inspectors found mixed communication with relatives, professionals and some people. Agency staff did not always communicate well or know people properly. Support plans did not always explain how staff should help people achieve their goals.
The overall rating remained Good, as the other key question ratings were carried over from the last inspection. The previous overall rating was also Good, but the Well-led rating changed from Good to Requires Improvement.
People's independence
The building and equipment helped people move around independently. People had personalised rooms and were supported to make choices and take positive risks.
“The equipment and adaptations support people to move around the building as independently as possible.” from the report
Safe staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found enough staff to support people safely. Recruitment and induction checks, including checks for agency staff, supported safe care.
“There were enough staff working to ensure people were safely supported.” from the report
Medicines and infection control
Staff used safe medicine procedures and explained medicines to people. Inspectors also found effective infection prevention and control arrangements.
“The service used effective infection, prevention and control measures to keep people safe, and staff supported people to follow them.” from the report
Learning from incidents
Managers reviewed incidents, identified patterns and used what they learned to arrange extra training or change practice.
“Incidents were reviewed and trends identified, for example, changes to how a person presented when emotionally upset resulted in the registered manager seeking additional specialist training for the staff team.” from the report
Communication
needs fixingSome relatives and professionals found it difficult to contact managers. Some people also found communication with agency staff difficult.
“Communication between staff and people and managers and people they work in partnership with is an area for improvement.” from the report
Agency staff understanding
needs fixingSome agency staff did not always know people well or communicate effectively. Inspectors saw an agency staff member trying to support someone who did not need help to eat, although no harm occurred.
“There was a reliance on agency staff who did not always know people well.” from the report
Support plans for goals
needs fixingPeople's goals and aspirations were recorded, but plans did not always tell staff how to support people consistently to achieve them.
“Support plans had not been developed to guide staff to know how to consistently support a person to achieve them.” from the report
- 01How do you now check an agency worker's communication skills before they start a shift?
- 02What has changed to improve communication with relatives and health and social care professionals?
- 03How are each person's goals turned into clear instructions in their support plan?
- 04How do you make sure agency staff understand each person's needs, preferences and communication passport?
- 05What active support training has staff received, and how do you check that it is being used?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 January 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, March 2020
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with all five areas rated Good.
This was a planned inspection carried out from 11 to 14 February 2020. One inspector visited the home and office, spoke with six people, three relatives and seven staff, and reviewed care, medicines and management records. The inspection also included phone calls to people receiving care in their own homes.
The home supported people with physical disabilities, learning disabilities and autism. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable risk plans and clean premises. People were supported to make choices, stay independent, access healthcare and take part in activities they enjoyed.
Inspectors saw warm and respectful relationships between people and staff. Care plans were personal and communication needs were considered. The manager used audits and feedback to monitor the service and make improvements.
The overall rating was Good, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was unchanged from the previous Good rating published in July 2017.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored securely and staff were trained and assessed as competent. Records were clear and accurate.
“Medicine Administration Records (MAR) were well organised, clear and completed accurately.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to direct their own care, make everyday choices and develop skills. The home aimed to help people become more independent.
“People's support focused on them having as many opportunities as possible for them to gain new skills and become more independent.” from the report
Kind relationships
Inspectors saw people and staff communicating warmly. People said staff were caring, respectful and familiar with their needs.
“We observed interactions between people and staff that demonstrated warmth and kindness.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans covered people's needs, goals, routines, likes and dislikes. Activities were offered around people's interests and choices.
“Each person had a care plan specifically designed around their needs, goals and aspirations.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The management team used audits, feedback and reviews to monitor care and make changes. Staff suggestions were used to improve some care plans.
“The provider's governance framework helped monitor the management and leadership as well as the ongoing quality and safety of the care people were receiving.” from the report
Staff changes and morale
minorSome staff said morale was low or uncertain because the provider was proposing changes to contracts, pay and roles. The report says this was not affecting people's care at the time.
“Some staff commented morale was alittle low due to the provider initiating changes, regarding staff contracts and pay.” from the report
Larger than current guidance
minorThe home was larger than current best practice guidance for this type of service. Inspectors said the building design and its setting reduced the possible negative effect on people.
“This is larger than current best practice guidance.” from the report
- 01What effect have the proposed changes to staff contracts, pay and roles had since the inspection?
- 02How do you make sure every staff member has read and understood each person's care plan and risk assessment?
- 03How will my relative's care and independence be protected in a home that is larger than current best practice guidance?
- 04How do you check that staff are available in sufficient numbers and that bells or requests for help are answered promptly?
- 05If care is provided in my relative's own home, how do you keep carers consistent and make sure visits are on time?
This was a planned inspection of the residential home and its domiciliary care service, covering all five CQC questions, with visits, records, interviews and phone calls to people receiving community care. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 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.
Every inspection of Shaftesbury Ashley Place
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2017GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 April 2015.
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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.