Ashford House Care Home

Accommodation was split across two floors accessed by a lift and two stairwells.

The registered manager was accessible, open and inclusive. People, relatives and staff told us they were supported by and had confidence in the registered manager.

People felt safe and risks were mostly assessed and managed. Some improvements were required to ensure all risks were identified, the registered manager agreed to take this action. There were enough staff with the right skills and experience. Some people had complex needs and at times staff were very busy attending to people's needs in different areas of the service. This meant at times people had to wait for staff to attend to them and on one occasion there were no staff available to support people in the communal lounge.

People received their medicines in a safe way. When things went wrong, the registered manager used this as an opportunity to learn. Systems and processes were changed to reduce any further risks.

Staff were kind and caring and had developed positive relationships with people. People were involved and included in decision making about their care and support. People were supported to maintain relationships with people important to them. Social activities were provided. However, opportunities for people to follow their interests and hobbies were limited.

People liked the meals provided and were mostly supported to eat and drink sufficient amounts. Staff identified when people's health deteriorated. They consulted with health care professionals and followed their advice and guidance.

Staff had the training and support they required to carry out their role.

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. People had appropriate authorisations in place for deprivation of liberty (DoLS) where this was required. Staff did not always follow the DoLS conditions. This meant important information to support least restrictive practices was not always available. For example staff were required to record the action taken when the person became distresses or were resistant to care but they did not always do this.