Ashurst Park Care Home

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good.

This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm. Although some improvements were needed in the medicines systems and processes, people received safe care and staff were aware of the individual risks to people. There were a sufficient number of staff providing care to people and staff had been recruited through robust processes. People lived in an environment that was safe and kept clean.

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good.

This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. Several people had really benefitted from living at Ashurst Park. Through the input of staff their lives had improved. Staff were good at monitoring people’s health, using national recognised treatments and processes. Where people lacked consent the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 was followed so the least restrictive practices were introduced.

Caring– this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good.

This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care. Everyone received care from kind, compassionate and attentive staff, although further work was needed to ensure that everyone living at the service was treated as an individual. Where people could, they could retain their independence and generally people were supported with their own decision making.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to Good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery. Some shortfalls were found in people’s care plans and ensuring that each and every person living at the service received person-centred, individualised care in line with their needs. However, the registered manager was working towards making improvements to meet the principles of the RSRCRC statutory guidance.

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained Requires Improvement.

This meant the service was not always consistently managed and well-led. Although management had created an extremely positive culture within the staff team and strived to promote high-quality, person-centred care, they had not recognised—or addressed—their significant failure to meet the requirements of the RSRCRC statutory guidance. They had not recognised that despite people with a learning disability having complex health needs, the principles of the statutory guidance should still be followed as the statutory guidance is clear in that people should be recognised as an individual, not a diagnosis. However, there was strong management oversight at the service and the registered manager was keen to improve the service for everyone.

The registered manager was in breach of Regulation 17 of the Health and Social Care Act 2208 (Regulated Activities) Regulations.