Ashville House

Staff training was not up to date, we were not assured the registered manager had effective oversight to manage staff training to ensure they completed their learning before expiry. Staff were not receiving regular supervision support. This meant we had concerns staff did not have up to date knowledge to support people at the home.

Quality assurance was not effective in the home audits, were not being completed for medicines and recruitment checklist audits were not accurate.

Equality and diversity was not always understood by staff where people were at risk of being discriminated against. We have made a recommendation about equality and diversity.

People were supported to have enough to eat and drink but choices were not always respected. We have made a recommendation about nutrition and hydration.

People, relatives and staff views were not always gathered within the home to drive improvement. We have made a recommendation about engagement with people, relatives, staff and health professionals.

There were enough staff to support people at the home and people told us they felt safe living there. People's other prescribed medicines was administered safely.

People's risk were assessed and measures put in place to reduce the risk of harm. Staff knew people's risks and how to keep them safe. Staff knew their safeguarding responsibilities despite not receiving up to date training in the area. The home was clean and infection was managed well within the home.

Consent to care and treatment was requested before care began and staff asked people for their permission before providing personal care support.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

The home worked well with health professionals to ensure they received prompt care and support and the registered manger found ways to support a comfortable experience for people when medical procedures were being carried out.

The home was warmly decorated and people could personalise their rooms as they wished. The home was accessible for people living there with access to a small garden.

People told us staff were kind and caring. Staff were patient with people and treated people with respect. Privacy and dignity was respected within the home and staff encouraged people's independence.

People's care plans were personalised to reflect their preferences and people's communication needs were met. People were able to enjoy different activities and supported to travel abroad. Systems were in place to respond to people's complaints.