Ashchurch House

The accommodation is arranged over 2 levels. The ground floor is accessible for people with physical disabilities or restricted mobility.

Who the service is for

Ashchurch House is a 10-bed service providing support and accommodation to people with a learning disability.

Key findings

We carried out this assessment on 6 October 2026 to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus if we found any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.

We assessed the service against Right support, right care, right culture guidance to determine whether it ensured people with a learning disability and autistic people received respect, equality, dignity, choice, independence and access to their local community. The service worked in line with the principles of Right support, right care, right culture. People were supported to exercise choice and control, maintain important relationships and participate in activities within their local community.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. Staff and management worked within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

People told us they felt safe living at the home and relatives spoke positively about the care and support provided. A person told us, “Yes, I do feel safe here. Staff respect me.” We also used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. Observations during the site visits showed staff interacting positively with people.

The environment was clean, well maintained and free from hazards. The menus, and activity schedules were displayed and it included images and wording tailored for the people needs. The provider carried out various checks on the physical environment to help ensure it was safe. These included tests by qualified contractors relating to health and safety, fire, gas, electricals and water safety to ensure the premises were safe for people.

Staffing levels were stable, and staff described feeling well supported by visible and approachable leaders. We observed kind, respectful and unhurried interactions between staff and people. Staff supported people safely explaining what they were doing and offered reassurance. Records showed staff had undertaken training to support their knowledge and understanding of how to keep people safe. They knew of their responsibilities to protect people from harm. However, we found the provider did not organise routine appraisals meetings with all staff. The registered manager told us they were new to the post and assured us they would plan appraisal meetings for all staff in the coming weeks.

Care plans were detailed and covered key areas of people’s needs and risks. People and their relatives confirmed they were involved in planning and reviews of their care. Risks to people were assessed and management plans were in place to inform staff how to reduce and manage risks to maintain people’s safety. For example, we saw risk assessments had been undertaken for people who were at risk of falls, and malnutrition.

A system was in place to record and monitor incidents within the service. We saw evidence that staff were encouraged to shared safeguarding concerns. People we spoke with confirmed they were informed when incidents involving their relative occurred. We saw the evidence where provider reported safeguarding concerns with the appropriate government bodies where appropriate. However, we found actions taken by the registered manager were not always recorded. We brought this to the registered manager attention they assured us they will improve on this.

Medicines were managed in a safe way. Medicines administration charts were maintained. We saw these had been competed accurately, and they were regularly audited by a senior member of staff. A relatives told us they saw staff wear gloves when administering medicines to people.

Staff demonstrated a strong understanding of people’s individual needs, preferences, and personal circumstances, enabling them to develop positive, respectful, and trusting relationships.

The service promoted an open, inclusive, and person-centred culture. Staff, people using the service, relatives, and external professionals were actively encouraged to contribute to the ongoing development and continuous improvement of the service.

The provider maintained effective partnerships with the local community and relevant organisations, supporting a coordinated and collaborative approach to delivering high-quality care.

The quality assurance and governance systems were in place to monitor the quality, safety, and effectiveness of the service. The registered manager was supported by a deputy manager and an area manager to ensure the service is run smoothly. These processes supported continuous learning, identified areas for improvement, and helped drive positive outcomes for people using the service.