Ash Grove

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

People’s needs and rights were supported. Care and support for people was effective. People had their health, care, well-being, and communication needs assessed. Care plans were reflective of people’s support needs and reviewed in a timely manner. Staff were aware of people’s preferences and respected these. Peoples’ capacity to make decisions was assessed and the information was part of their care plans. Staff had good knowledge of the Mental Capacity Act, including capacity and consent. Relatives had been involved in planning for peoples’ care needs. One relative said they weren’t being kept up to date with their family members’ medical needs, which was fed back to the management team to action.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Relatives confirmed they were involved in discussions and reviews with staff and the management team regarding the care and support provided. Comments included, “They ring me and update me. We work closely together.” “[Manager’s name] is brilliant. They keep me updated and let me know if there are any issues.”

The new management team were developing relationships and getting to know people and their care and support needs. Staff knew people; their preferred routines, the support they needed with their physical and emotional well-being and how to communicate in the best way with them.

We reviewed 4 support plans. People’s needs had been assessed and documented. For example, regarding mobility, medical needs, eating and drinking, continence, daily life and personal hygiene. Some sections of individual people’s support plans had been developed by external agencies. For example, for one person an external agency had created a disability distress assessment tool. Where appropriate, positive behaviour support (PBS) plans were in place for people. PBS is a person-centred framework for providing support to people with a learning disability or autism who may display behaviours that may be challenging or distressing for themselves or others. One-page profiles were in place detailing important information about the person, such as how to support and what was important to them. Support plans were personalised to the individual which enabled staff to support people safely and effectively. Some were more detailed than others. People’s care had been developed in collaboration with family, social worker and staff. Wherever possible, people were involved in their care planning and staff ensured their choices were respected. However, reviews had not always been carried out on the dates stated in peoples’ care and support records. The service manager and operations manager had already shared with us at the start of our visit they had scheduled this in to review this issue the following day.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

Relatives told us they were involved in discussions regarding people’s health. One relative told us, “[Person’s name] has a varied diet. They (staff) have worked hard to increase their weight. I have confidence in the management, and they are getting better. They keep me informed of any changes to her medication and invite me to reviews. The staff who look after [person’s name] are very dedicated and you can tell things are improving.” Another relative said, “I am invited to reviews and I have said I would like them to monitor [person] eating as they should not gain weight with their condition. They (staff) have started to take them out and do more exercise. [Person] goes out for long walks and has a gym membership.” However, this relative also felt they weren’t being kept up to date with their family members medical needs. This was fed back to the management team.

People were supported to maintain and improve their health. For example, one person had recently undergone dental treatment. Hospital passports were also in place for people to help provide hospital staff with important information about the person such as how they communicate, support needs, medical history, and their likes and dislikes.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

People were supported to make choices and decisions as much as they could for themselves. Support plans showed people’s involvement and outlined what people could do and what support was needed by staff. For example, one person’s support plan described what they could do independently whilst showering and what they needed staff to help with. Where required, people were supported with the services of an Advocate. One person who lacked the capacity to make some decisions about their care had the services of an independent mental capacity advocate (IMCA). The IMCA service is provided for any person aged 16 years or older, who has doesn’t have anyone to support and represent them, and who lacks capacity to make a decision.

We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA (Mental Capacity Act 2005). The service had policies and procedures in relation to the MCA. There were systems to monitor deprivation of liberty (DoLS) to ensure people were only deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when it was in their best interest, and legally authorised under the MCA.