CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at 2 Ashley Close
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People had individual risk assessments, medicines were checked and staff had safeguarding training. Inspectors found enough staff and a regular team who knew people well.
- Effective?
- Good
- Care plans covered people's physical, mental and social needs, and staff worked with health professionals. Staff received ongoing training, although inspectors noted limited involvement in promoting independence during the visit.
- Caring?
- Good
- People appeared happy and were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff asked people about their choices and involved people and relatives in care reviews.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and people were supported to take part in community activities and maintain important relationships. Complaints were recorded, responded to and followed up.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager was visible and approachable, and staff said they felt supported. Regular quality checks, external audits and feedback from people, relatives and staff were used to monitor the home.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Walsingham Support rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some room to improve independence and end-of-life planning.
This was an unannounced planned inspection. Inspection activity ran from 12 to 19 June 2019, including a visit to the office. One inspector spoke with a person using the home, two relatives, staff and four visiting professionals. Records about care, medicines, staff and quality checks were also reviewed.
The home provided personal and nursing care for six people with learning disabilities. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly and supported by staff who knew their needs. People were involved in choices about their care, received medicines as needed and were supported to access health care, activities and relationships.
All five CQC questions were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was the same overall rating and the same rating for each question as at the previous inspection, published on 14 October 2016.
Safe staffing
Inspectors found enough staff, with robust recruitment checks. Regular staff and agency workers who passed competency checks helped provide continuity.
“People were supported by staff who had been through a robust recruitment selection process.” from the report
Personalised choices
Care plans recorded what mattered to each person and how they wanted support. People helped choose meals, activities and aspects of their daily care.
“Peoples care plans were personalised and set out how people liked to be supported to meet their individual needs and preferences.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People appeared comfortable with staff, and inspectors saw kindness, respect and attention to privacy. Staff supported communication in different ways.
“People were being treated with kindness and respect.” from the report
Good partnership working
The home worked closely with health professionals and followed advice about people's health, nutrition and communication needs.
“The staff team have worked together with other health professional to provide person centred care.” from the report
Independence could be encouraged more
needs fixingInspectors saw staff completing tasks for people. There were some prompts to do things independently, but this was not consistent during the inspection.
“During the inspection there was limited involvement where staff promoted people to be involved in encouraging them to be independent.” from the report
End-of-life plans needed more detail
needs fixingPlans recorded people's wishes after death but did not explain their wishes if they became ill and needed palliative care. Inspectors recommended improving these plans.
“We recommended that this was developed with the details of peoples wishes and wants of they were to fall ill which then resulted in palliative care.” from the report
Accessible information was not understood by everyone
minorThe home had accessible information, but inspectors found that some people could not understand its content.
“The provider has accessible information available, however some of the people living there were not able to understand the content.” from the report
- 01How do you help each person do more for themselves, rather than staff completing tasks for them?
- 02How would you record and follow a person's wishes if they became seriously ill and needed palliative care?
- 03How do you check that accessible information is understood by each person?
- 04How do you make sure agency staff have the right skills and personal approach for each person?
- 05How are people's choices included when care plans and reviews are updated?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and care provided; all ratings were assessed during this inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 July 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.
What inspectors found, November 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, but two care plans were not always reviewed regularly.
This was an unannounced inspection. Inspectors spoke with a person using the home, managers, care staff, relatives and a health professional. They also reviewed care plans, staff records and management records, and observed care.
The home supported up to six people with a learning disability, and all six places were occupied during the inspection. Inspectors found suitable staffing, safe medicines practices, suitable recruitment checks and regular risk assessments. Staff were trained and supported, and understood people's needs.
People were treated with kindness and respect. They were supported to make choices, stay as independent as possible, eat and drink well, attend activities and access healthcare. The home had a complaints process and quality checks. Two care plans were not always reviewed regularly, and the manager said immediate action would be taken.
People were kept safe
Staff understood people's risks and how to respond to possible triggers. Risk assessments, emergency plans and safety checks were in place.
“There were systems in place to keep people safe from harm.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors saw warm interactions, staff spending time with people and support that protected privacy and dignity.
“Throughout the day we observed staff interacting with people in a positive and caring way.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about their care, food and activities. Staff encouraged people to keep and develop their skills.
“People were supported to make decisions for themselves and encouraged to be as independent as possible.” from the report
Trained and supported staff
Staff received induction, training, supervision and appraisals. Inspectors found that staff had the skills and knowledge to meet people's needs.
“The provider had a robust recruitment process in place which ensured that staff were qualified and suitable to work in the home.” from the report
Care plan reviews
needs fixingTwo care and support plans were not always reviewed regularly. The registered manager said immediate action would be taken to correct this.
“Two care and support plans were not always regularly reviewed” from the report
Management capacity
minorA relative was concerned that the registered manager was managing two sites and might not be able to give either site full attention. Inspectors still rated the service well-led as Good.
“The manager is very lovely but she's managing two sites at the moment therefore in my opinion neither site can be managed efficiently” from the report
- 01How do you make sure every person's care plan is reviewed on time, and what was done about the two plans identified in this report?
- 02How is management cover arranged when the registered manager is responsible for two sites?
- 03How many permanent and agency staff usually work each shift, and how do you maintain consistency when agency staff are used?
- 04How are people involved in choosing their activities, food and daily support?
- 05How are complaints recorded, investigated and used to improve people's care?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall service covering Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led, using observations, discussions and records. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 November 2016 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 2 Ashley Close
2 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 April 2013.
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.