Ashill Lodge Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

We were not assured the service was always caring. People were not always supported with their independence, choice or control. People were not actively involved in reviewing the care needs or their relatives been involved in reviewing them. There was a poor level of activities within the service and people weren’t asked what they wanted to do. We were not assured the peoples needs were responded to appropriately.

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Kindness, compassion and dignity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

We did not look at Treating people as individuals during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.

A person in the service we spoke with didn’t feel supported to rehabilitate with their mobility and said “They haven't been taught how to help you. By now I should be walking more than I am.” They felt this impacted their independence. Relatives said they hadn’t observed restrictions on people within the service and they weren’t restricted on visiting. We spoke to relatives about activities and if people are encouraged to recommend activities and most relatives stated they didn’t see any activities going on within the service, but they would see activities posted on the services Facebook page, some expressed that it would be nice for them to go outside. Majority of relatives we spoke too said they are not encouraged to review care plans or medications reviews. One relative said “I did ask to review it monthly, but nothing has been followed up with this”.

When we spoke to Registered Manager, they said they had no specific Activities team within the service and how this is part of the care staff’s duties. They explained that the day-to-day activities is talking and reminiscing with people in the service and walking around the garden. These activities were not observed on the day and appeared to be the simplest and offered no stimulation to people. When we spoke to staff about the food and drinks provided within the service, some staff felt they had no input on the meals provided and that it was all the same and didn’t have good nutritional value “they have a lot of sausage and chips” This supported what we observed on site.

There were several visitors within the service when we were onsite but there was an inadequate level of wellbeing activities within the service and when we asked about the activities provided, they mainly consisted off reminiscence, conversation and walking around the garden. There was no evidence of asking people within the service what they would like to do. People in the service seemed unstimulated and there was no links to the local community. There were minimal hours provided to activities.

One person in the service showed us how they called for assistance with their call bell but expressed it can take a while to be answered. The service has been unable to evidence to us how they monitor call bell call times. A couple of Relatives didn’t feel health concerns were addressed appropriately or promptly when they had raised them.

We asked staff if they felt confident responding to peoples needs and the staff felt they were. However, we were not assured as staff advised they followed peoples care plans to respond to their needs. We had reviewed a number of care plans and they had incorrect guidance in them, if staff had followed these it could have caused more serious health complications to people in the service. 1 staff member we spoke with explained the process that they would follow to observe an individual’s health and it did not assure us that they would react quickly to the immediate needs of that person.

We were not assured that people’s needs were responded to appropriately within the service, When onsite, it was observed that a person in the service expressed to a staff member that they were not feeling too well and the staff member noted the individuals presentation didn’t appear normal for them. When this was raised to another team member they didn’t respond appropriately. It wasn’t until this was escalated by an inspector that the person received appropriate support.

We did not look at Workforce wellbeing and enablement during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Caring.