Ashville House

People and a relative described staff as kind and caring. Inspectors saw staff treating people with respect and supporting their independence.

“People received care and support from staff who treated them with kindness and respect.” from the report

Care plans recorded people's likes, dislikes, history and support needs. Staff said they had time to read and understand them.

“People's care plans were individual to them and met their needs and choices.” from the report

People took part in activities they enjoyed, including outings and holidays. The home supported one person to have a short break in Paris.

“Other short holidays, day trips and weekly outings were arranged by the home.” from the report

The home worked with health professionals and arranged appointments at the home where possible. Staff also helped people who felt anxious about medical appointments.

“The registered manager worked well with health professionals to ensure people received prompt health support.” from the report

There were no protocols explaining when as-required medicines should be given. Records did not always show why they were given and did not always match the medicine administration chart.

“The systems to manage medicines was not safe and put people at risk of potential harm.” from the report

Only one of four recruitment files checked was complete. Other files had a missing or old criminal records check or missing references.

“The provider was not following safe recruitment practices. This placed people at risk of potential harm.” from the report

Some staff training had expired or was not evidenced, and staff were not receiving regular supervision. Inspectors could not be sure staff had current knowledge for their roles.

“The provider failed to ensure all staff had up to date training and supervision support while they supported people.” from the report

Audits did not identify problems with medicines, recruitment or staff training. Resident meetings were also not held regularly and staff surveys were not kept up to date.

“Systems to monitor the quality of the service and risk were not effective as they did not ensure a safe service was always being provided to people living at the service.” from the report

People had enough food and drink, but the report found that choices were not always respected. One person was given a different lunch option without this being confirmed beforehand.

“However, during lunchtime we observed people were provided with a different option without asking them.” from the report

Staff understood people as individuals but did not fully understand equality and diversity, including the risk of discrimination linked to protected characteristics.

“Staff knew to respect people as individuals but not fully aware of equality and diversity” from the report