Ash Hall Nursing 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

During our assessment of this key question, we found concerns around responding to people’s immediate needs. People were not always treated with kindness, compassion and dignity or as individuals. Although the provider documented people’s individual activities and had a social network page, improvements were still needed in the provision of meaningful person-centred activities. While there were systems in place to promote the wellbeing of staff and to enable them to carry out their roles, improvements were required to ensure people received person-centred care.

This service scored 55 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People told us they were not always treated with compassion and dignity. One person told us, “I asked for a drink recently, but it disappeared before I was able to drink it.” One relative told us, “My [relative] is restricted with their movement so when staff put their drink out of reach, they can’t drink it. There is often no soap in the dispenser by the sink in their room and normally there is no towel by their sink.”

While staff generally felt people were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity, people fed back to us this was not always the case. We observed practice where people were not always treated with dignity.

Professionals supporting people at Ash Hall Nursing Home told us people were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity. One professional working with the service told us, “I have not seen any resident who I felt was at risk of poor care and feel the majority of the staff at the home have a very caring approach to residents and it’s not just a job to them.” Another professional working with the service told us, “The person I visited was happy and comfortable.” While professionals supporting people at Ash Hall Nursing Home told us people were treated with kindness, compassion and dignity, people fed back to us this was not always the case. We observed practice where people were not always treated with dignity.

We observed people were not always treated with compassion and dignity. Where 2 people, who could not use their call bells, remained in their rooms in a less occupied part of the building, we observed the lights were not on in the communal corridor or in their rooms and they were in the dark. One person had been calling out for support and the other person had been trying to read. Both of them asked a member of the assessment team for the lights to be switched on. When we informed the provider, they put a plan in place to ensure the appropriate checks were carried out to mitigate the risk of it happening again. One person had been calling out for support from staff as they were uncomfortable in their sitting position, some staff members passed by without acknowledging them. This meant people were at risk of waiting for long periods to have their needs met. One carer did notice after a while and arranged for 2 members of staff to support them to move with a hoist.

People gave mixed feedback about how they were treated as individuals. One person told us, “I am not happy here. There is nothing to do here, no stimulation. If I didn’t see people walking by my bedroom door, I wouldn’t see anybody.” Another person told us, “Although the food is lovely, I would prefer my drinks to be brought in a mug. They did so for a bit when I asked but [staff] are very busy.” Another person told us, “I am happy with the care and staff are good and respectful. The food is variable in quality but there are alternatives if I want something different.” One relative told us, “Residents are given 2 meal choices daily. It is very traditional food.”

Staff gave mixed feedback about how people’s individual needs were met. One staff member told us, “There are scheduled times when people have their incontinence aids changed. Lunchtimes can be an issue, and people are often told they will be assisted once dinners are done.” Another staff member told us, “There is a member of clergy who comes in monthly for people with religious needs. We call them if residents need to speak with them.” Another staff member told us, “We follow people’s care plans and respond to their needs and wishes.”

While we observed many interactions where staff treated people as individuals, people and staff fed back to us this was not always the case.

Systems in place to ensure people were treated as individuals were not always effective. People’s care plans did not always include enough information about their individual health needs, risks or care preferences, particularly around their social and communication preferences. Staff had received equality and diversity training.

People gave mixed feedback about how much choice, independence and control they had. One person told us, “We only ever get plastic beakers for drinks. We never get China mugs, not even for hot drinks. With the food, you get what you are given.” Another person told us, “[Staff member] has been amazing with my [relative]. They spend time with them and try to engage them.”

Staff told us people had independence, choice and control. One staff member told us, “Now we have a new activities coordinator, people are having more one-to-one time including hand massages. There is always something going on in lounge. There is a film afternoon later.” Another staff member told us, “Sometimes care plans tell me enough information but I ask residents what they like or dislike. I ask other staff if I need to know something about the residents when needed.”

While we observed many interactions where staff gave people choice and control, people fed back to us this was not always the case. Where people remained in their rooms, we saw minimal evidence of interaction between staff and residents and of activities taking place.

Although the provider documented people’s individual activities and had a social network page, improvements were still needed in the provision of meaningful person-centred activities. The provider had an activities coordinator and were looking into increasing activity time for people who preferred to remain in their rooms. The provider had also purchased a software to enable them to prepare person-centred activities for people living with dementia. However, the provider told us this had not yet been used due to prioritising other improvements identified by the local authority who was supporting them to improve people’s care and the provider’s systems.

People told us the provider did not respond to their immediate needs in a timely way. One person told us, “The waiting time for the call bell to be answered is a safety issue for me. I do worry when I press the call bell if I need water. Recently I had to wait 50 minutes before it was answered. I worry because if I was really poorly it could be too late.” Another person told us, “The rate of response is zero. I often have to wait for an hour for a response. It is no different at weekends or in the evening.”

While staff told us they generally responded to people’s immediate needs, some feedback indicated people often waited to be assisted to use the toilet or have their incontinence aids changed. When we reviewed call bell data as part of our assessment, we found several instances where people waited a long time to be supported after they had pressed their call bell.

During our assessment, we observed staff responding to 1 person straight away after they had pressed their call bell, however their relatives told us this was not normal, and they usually had to go and ask staff to support them.

Staff told us they were supported well by the management team and colleagues. One staff member told us, “Some staff come from overseas, and the management are flexible to them, allowing them to take extended periods of annual leave to visit family. The manager was very supportive when I had to take leave due to personal circumstances.” Another staff member told us, “Staff morale is good, and we all get on well. Some days are stressful, but we tend to get on with things. We are a close knit and supportive team.” Another staff member told us, “I love this place and it’s the best staff team I've worked with.”

While there were systems in place to promote the wellbeing of staff and to enable them to carry out their roles, improvements were required to ensure people received person-centred care. Staff wellbeing and how to promote person-centred care was discussed in one-to-one meetings with a senior or manager, and in team meetings. Handover meetings took place to ensure staff were up to date with people’s needs and risks.