CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 1 Ashley Close
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Walsingham Support - 1 Ashley Close: Inspected but not rated; inspectors found mostly safe infection control, but coveralls were used without proper training.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 02 February 2021. It looked at infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak, rather than giving a full rating for the home.
Inspectors found good arrangements for visitors, testing, cleaning, social distancing and managing infection risks. Family visits had been arranged in the conservatory, but they were temporarily suspended because of the outbreak.
The home was clean and had detailed cleaning records. However, the manager and one staff member wore coveralls instead of changing clothes when arriving and leaving. They had not been trained to use this extra PPE safely, and the manager said it would be withdrawn.
Visitor infection controls
Visitors were screened, given PPE and provided with hand sanitiser. Visits were arranged to reduce the risk of infection spreading.
“Visitors were screened and had their temperatures checked by staff on arrival. Alcohol gel was made available and all visitors were required to wear personal protective equipment (PPE).” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic, with cleaning schedules completed throughout the building.
“The service was clean and hygienic. Cleaning schedules were in place, which were methodically completed throughout the service.” from the report
Risk planning
Health, safety and wellbeing risks were assessed. Staff had access to training, management support and financial help if they became unwell.
“Risks to people and staff in relation to their health, safety and wellbeing had been thoroughly assessed.” from the report
Coveralls were not used safely
needs fixingThe manager and one staff member wore coveralls instead of changing clothes when arriving and leaving. They had not been trained to put on, remove or dispose of this PPE safely.
“staff had not received training on how to safely put on, take off and dispose of this additional item of PPE.” from the report
- 01Were the coveralls withdrawn after the inspection, as the manager said they would be?
- 02What PPE training have staff completed, and how is safe use checked?
- 03How are family visits currently arranged and managed?
- 04How does the home currently manage testing and infection outbreaks?
- 05What are the home's current cleaning arrangements and how are they checked?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak; the service was inspected but not rated and the other key questions were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 February 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, August 2019
Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind and responsive care, but people were at risk from unsafe support and weak oversight.
The unannounced inspection took place on 12 and 19 June 2019. One inspector spoke with a person, relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was not always safe. Inspectors found unsafe moving and handling, poor support for someone at risk of aspiration, and care plans that did not clearly explain how to manage risks. Staff were also offering high-risk food to someone who needed a modified diet.
People were treated with kindness and respect. Their care plans were personalised, relatives could visit, and people were supported to attend community groups. However, staff did not always help people build independence or communicate their choices in ways they could understand.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were rated Requires Improvement, while Caring and Responsive were rated Good. The previous overall rating was Good, published in October 2016.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about the care. Inspectors saw staff being attentive, kind and respectful, and responding quickly when people needed help.
“Whilst observing the support staff were speaking to people in a respectful and kind way.” from the report
Personalised care plans
Care plans recorded people's likes, dislikes and preferred support. People were also encouraged to attend community groups and places of interest.
“People's care plans were personalised and set out how people liked to be supported to meet their individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Staff recruitment
The home completed pre-employment checks, including references and disclosure and barring checks. Regular agency staff also had competency checks.
“People were supported by staff who had been through a robust recruitment selection process.” from the report
Medicines and infection control
Staff received medicines training and competency checks. Inspectors found medicines were given when needed, the home was clean, and infection control arrangements were in place.
“People received their medicines when they needed them.” from the report
Health professional involvement
People had annual health checks and access to other health professionals. The manager contacted health professionals when risks to people's health were identified.
“People had annual health checks as well as access to other health professionals to meet their health needs.” from the report
Unsafe moving and handling
seriousInspectors saw unsafe moving and handling techniques that could have harmed both the person and staff. Guidance in care plans was unclear and did not always match people's current needs.
“At the time of the inspection one staff was using unsafe moving and handling techniques which could have caused harm to the person and the staff.” from the report
Aspiration and choking risks
seriousStaff were not always following guidance for people at risk of aspiration or needing modified food. Inspectors found that high-risk foods could have caused choking.
“This meant that staff were offering high risk foods to a person that needed a modified diet which could have resulted in the person choking.” from the report
Limited independence
needs fixingStaff often completed tasks such as preparing meals and drinks rather than involving people. Not everyone was encouraged to take part in activities that could build independence.
“There was limited involvement where staff promoted people to be involved in encouraging them to be independent.” from the report
Communication methods
needs fixingThe available easy-read and pictorial information was not understandable to everyone. Inspectors recommended developing different communication aids and methods.
“We recommend that this is looked into to develop the communication aids to help people understand information given to them.” from the report
- 01What has changed in practice since the inspection to make moving and handling safe, and how are staff's competencies checked?
- 02How do you now manage aspiration and modified-diet risks, and how do you make sure every staff member follows the latest guidance?
- 03Can you show us the current risk assessments, staff training records and supervision records for the people we are considering care for?
- 04How will you involve people in everyday tasks and activities so they can maintain or increase their independence?
- 05What communication aids do you now use so each person can understand information and express choices?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, with visits on 12 and 19 June 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 August 2019 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 Close
3 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 November 2012.
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 Hertfordshire
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 £1,300 a week. 82 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“She handled the new situation in front of her with such professionalism and I felt I could trust her 100%.”
“She was v competent and confident and we felt our mum was safe in her care. She supported us through a difficult time.”
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.