Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Ashley Arnewood Manor, New Milton.

Ashley Arnewood Manor in New Milton is a Residential home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care and caring for adults over 65 yrs. The last inspection date here was 4th December 2019

Ashley Arnewood Manor is managed by Scofil Limited.

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Ashley Arnewood Manor
      32 Ashley Road
      New Milton
      BH25 6BB
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      01425611453

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Good
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2019-12-04
    Last Published 2017-03-04

Local Authority:

    Hampshire

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

1st February 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Ashley Arnewood Manor offers accommodation for up to 20 people who require personal care, including those who are living with dementia.

The inspection was unannounced and was carried out on 1 and 3 February 2017.

At our previous inspections in July and December 2015, we found the home needed to make significant improvements to meet all of the regulations. Following the inspections, the provider sent us an action plan telling us the steps they were taking to make the improvements required.

At this inspection we found significant improvements had been made and all regulations had been met.

There was a registered manager in place at the home. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the home. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the home is run.

People and relatives told us they felt the home was safe. People were protected from abuse. Staff had received safeguarding training, understood types of abuse and the action they would take if they identified any concerns.

People received their medicines safely. Staff were trained and their competency assessed to administer medicines. Systems were in place for the storage and administration of medicines, including controlled drugs.

There were sufficient staff deployed to meet people’s needs. People were engaged in planned activities throughout each week.

People were supported by staff who had received an induction into the home and appropriate training and professional development to enable them to meet people’s individual needs. Staff meetings took place and staff said these were helpful and enabled issues to be discussed. Staff felt supported by the registered manager and were confident to raise any issues or concerns with them.

Staff followed legislation designed to protect people’s rights and ensure decisions were made in their best interests. The registered manager understood Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards and had submitted requests for authorisation when required.

People were supported to maintain their health and well-being and had access to healthcare services when they needed them. People had enough to eat and drink and their specific dietary needs were met.

Staff were kind and caring, had time for people and sat and listened to them when they wanted to talk. Staff treated people with dignity and respect and ensured their privacy was maintained.

Initial assessments were carried out before people moved into Ashley Arnewood Manor to ensure their needs could be met. Information was used to develop person centred plans of care for people.

The service was responsive to people’s needs and staff listened to them. People and, when appropriate, their families or other representatives were involved in decisions about their care planning.

People and relatives were encouraged to give their views about the service. People and relatives confirmed they knew how to make a complaint and would do so if they had cause to.

There was an open and supportive culture within the home. The registered manager provided leadership and guidance to staff who felt supported.

Systems were in place to assess and monitor the quality of people’s care and health and safety within the home. Individual and environmental risks relating to people’s health and welfare had been identified and assessed to reduce those risks. The environment and equipment was regularly checked and servicing contracts were in place, for example for the hoists and stair lift. Incidents and accidents were recorded and actions taken.

Plans were in place to manage emergencies including alternative accommodation should the home need to be evacuated.

8th December 2015 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We inspected Ashley Arnewood Manor on 8 and 14 December 2015 to check the provider had made improvements to meet the breaches of regulations we had identified during our previous inspection. This was an unannounced inspection and we found improvements had been made but there was still work to do.

We had inspected Ashley Arnewood Manor on 24, 25 and 31 March 2015. This was an unannounced inspection to check they had made improvements to comply with the breaches of regulations we had identified at our inspection on 26 June 2014. At the inspection in March 2015, the provider had not improved the safety and quality of care people received. The provider had appointed two people to jointly manage the service. They had given appropriate support and guidance to the new managers and as they had not attended the home regularly had not been able to assure themselves that people were safe and the home was being managed appropriately.

Following the inspection in March 2015, the provider kept us informed of actions they were taking, including appointing an interim manager whilst recruiting a new manager to oversee the improvement and development of the home.

At this inspection (December 2015) we found improvements had been made. However, there were areas that needed further improvement and some areas that remained in breach of regulation since our inspection in June 2015.

Ashley Arnewood Manor is a small home in New Milton and provides care and support for up to 20 older people, some of whom are living with dementia. Each person has their own room which is personalised with their own belongings and furnishings.

The home does not have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There were not always sufficient numbers of staff deployed at all times. Staff recruitment procedures were robust and ensured only those considered suitable to work in social care settings were employed.

Staff received training, supervision and appraisal to support them in their role. New staff received an induction when they started work and received regular training to enable them to carry out their duties safely. However, the manager and some staff did not fully understand the Mental Capacity Act 2005 or when to apply for a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisation.

Staff understood their responsibilities to report any concerns of possible abuse. People’s medicines were managed safely although we identified some issues in relation to the administration of medicines. Infection control procedures within the home had improved, although there was still work to be done.

People were treated with respect and compassion. Observations showed staff knew people very well and considered their emotional wellbeing, choices and wishes and promoted their independence. People’s hobbies and interests were documented and staff encouraged people to take part in activities.

Care plans and risk assessments had been reviewed regularly. Although some care plans did not accurately reflect people’s support needs. Referrals to health care professionals were made quickly when people felt unwell and advice was acted upon, although some on-going conditions required closer monitoring.

Surveys were in place to gain feedback from people and relatives, who told us they felt able to voice their opinions about the quality of care provided and any concerns they might have.

Systems were in place to monitor the quality of the service. Health and safety checks were completed to ensure the environment was maintained to a safe standard. Records relating to the management of the home, such as policies required updating and improving.

We found two breaches of the

26th June 2014 - During an inspection in response to concerns pdf icon

We inspected Ashley Arnewood Manor due to some concerns we had received. At the time of out inspection there were 13 people living at the home, but one person was away visiting relatives. We spoke with ten people who used the service and one relative. We spoke with four members of staff, as well as the two managers and the owner. There had recently been significant changes within the home. The previous manager had recently left the service which was unplanned. The two deputy managers had been promoted to jointly manage the home with support from the owner and a member of the administrative staff. We were aware of these changes before we visited the service.

The managers told us they had already met with the owner and administrator and had written a service development plan, which we saw. They told us that due to the amount of work that needed to be done, they were prioritising their improvement actions. They were in the process of reviewing all of the service users’ care plans, service policies, recording systems, staff training and appraisals and supervision. We found the managers to be responsive to our feedback. All of the staff we spoke with told us that they were already seeing improvements. They told us they had confidence in the new managers to support them and to make the improvements required.

We gathered evidence against the outcomes we inspected to help answer our five key questions; Is the service caring? Is the service responsive? Is the service safe? Is the service effective? Is the service well led?

Below is a summary of what we found. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.

Is the service safe?

We found some aspects of the service were not safe. People told us they felt safe and that staff were kind. One person told us “Safe, I should say so. I’ve been here a long time.” Throughout our visit we saw that staff treated people kindly.

Staff understood how to safeguard people they supported and knew about the whistleblowing policy. However, the provider’s safeguarding policy did not include details of how to contact external agencies if they had concerns about people.

There were no environmental risk assessments and the provider had not identified areas of risk to people, such as uneven floors and poorly signed fire evacuation routes. There were no risk assessments for infection control or for the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH).

Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff recorded events such as accidents and incidents, complaints and concerns. However, the provider could not always show that these had been reviewed and actions had been carried through.

The Care Quality Commission (CQC) monitors the operation of the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) which applies to care homes. Relevant policies and procedures were in place. However, the managers were not aware of recent changes to the legislation.

We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to safeguarding, DoLS, infection control, learning from incidents and events and identifying environmental risks.

Is the service effective?

The service was not always effective. We saw that people were referred to other health care professionals, when necessary, for specialist advice and treatment. People’s health care needs and associated risks were assessed. However, this information was not always used to inform the planning of people’s care. Most care plans and risk assessments were reviewed on a monthly basis, but did not always reflect people’s changing needs.

Most people we spoke with could not remember if they had a care plan, but most remembered being asked questions about their care. People told us “I tell them [staff] what I like” and “I like to stay up late and that’s ok”. However, when we viewed people’s care plans there was not always evidence that they, or their relatives, were involved in the planning of their care.

Where people did not have capacity to consent the provider had not acted in accordance with legal requirements. There were no mental capacity assessments for the people whose records we viewed. Best interest decisions had not always been carried out in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Staff we spoke with had little or no understanding of the requirements of the Act.

We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to involving people in their care and assessing people’s mental capacity.

Is the service caring?

The service was caring. People told us that staff were kind and caring. We heard that staff were “Very kind” and “So careful”. One person said “I like it here. They are very, very good”. We observed that staff spoke to people with kindness and respect.

We saw care and support being provided to people in a kind, patient and considerate manner. Staff used gentle encouragement with people to ensure they received the care they required.

Is the service responsive?

We found that staff were responsive. We saw that most of the time there were care staff on hand in the lounges and staff responded to people in a timely way. We observed staff supporting each other to achieve positive outcomes for people. For example, if one staff member could not encourage a person to have a bath, another member of staff was called to see if the person would respond to them. This was undertaken in a sensitive and compassionate way.

Most people told us they knew how to make a complaint if they were unhappy. We saw that the service had responded positively to ideas from people at a recent residents meeting.

Is the service well led?

We found the service was not always well led. The managers had started to carry out a programme of supervisions (Observed care practice) with care staff. They had reviewed each staff member’s training needs and training was in the process of being booked. Staff told us that they felt supported and listened to by the new managers and that there was an open door policy for them to talk to the managers when they needed to. Staff were confident that ideas and suggestions for improvements would be actioned. They received training which supported them to carry out their roles. Staff meetings took place which enabled staff to discuss and plan improvements within the service.

There was a quality assurance system in place to identify and address issues and inform improvements. However, actions had not always been followed up. For example, on the day of inspection we found that not all issues identified by the Fire and Rescue Service in April 2013 had been addressed. We have shared this information with the Fire and Rescue Service. Staff told us they are confident that monitoring will improve under the new management. We have asked the provider to tell us what they are going to do to meet the requirements of the law in relation to assessing and monitoring the quality of the service.

26th June 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We brought forward a planned inspection as we had received concerns about the care and welfare of people at the home, the levels of staffing and staff recruitment procedures.

We were assisted by the registered manager for part of the inspection and by the deputy manager for the remainder of the visit. We looked at the care records for three people and spoke with eight people who lived at the home. Some people were not able to tell us about their experience of the home because of dementia. We also spoke with one visiting relative and with four members of staff.

We found that people’s care and support needs were being met. Their needs had been assessed and care plans put in place to inform staff of how to support people. Staff were knowledgeable about people’s care needs and any medical needs had also been addressed with appropriate referrals to health professionals.

The home had robust recruitment procedures in place and we found that these were being followed. Recruitment regulations had been complied with for the recruitment of new members of staff.

There were suitable staffing levels maintained to make sure that people’s needs were being met.

The home had good systems in place to monitor the quality of service of being provided.

7th March 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

We spoke to six people who used the service, and four members of staff. People using the service were happy with the care they received. One person said "I would not wish to live anywhere else", another person said "the staff are nice girls and I am happy here".

People we spoke to said they felt respected by staff, one person told us that staff "always knock on my door before entering". One person we spoke to said they felt they could live their life as they wished, commenting that the staff "respect my wishes".

We found that people experienced safe and effective care based on personalised individual care plans and risk assessments.

We found an effective system was in place to monitor the administration of medication.

We found that people were protected against the risk of abuse because staff had undertaken safeguarding training. Staff demonstrated and awareness of safeguarding and understood what their duties were if they had concerns and who they should contact.

We found the provider had a thorough recruitment and selection process in place. Staff said that they received disclosure and barring checks and reference checks before commencing employment.

The provider had a twelve week induction program and ongoing mandatory training was provided to ensure staff maintained their skills to perform their job properly.

1st January 1970 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Ashley Arnewood Manor is a residential care home that supports up to 20 older people, some of whom live with dementia. When we visited 17 people were living there.

There was no registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service and has the legal responsibility for meeting the requirements of the law; as does the provider. Management responsibilities were being shared by two managers who had been jointly promoted from deputy managers last year. The managers had both submitted an application to be registered as the new registered managers on a job share basis and were awaiting further information about when their interviews would take place with the commission.

This inspection took place on 24, 25 and 31 March 2015 and was unannounced.

At our previous inspection on 26 June 2014 the provider was in breach of seven regulations relating to: supporting staff; consent; care and welfare; cleanliness and infection control; safety and suitability of premises; assessing and monitoring quality and records.

The provider sent us an action plan which stated what they would do to meet the requirements.

At this inspection the provider had made some improvements but was in breach of nine regulations.

There were omissions in the recording of people’s medicines. Staff could not be assured that people received their medicines appropriately. Information about people’s allergies were not recorded consistently so there was a risk that people may receive medicines that were not safe.

People’s care plans and risk assessments were not always updated to reflect the most recent circumstances and staff did not always have up to date information and guidance to support people with their care. People were not always protected from avoidable harm, risks were not always managed safely and incidents were not always reported and investigated.

There were not always sufficient staff to provide the care, support and emotional and social activities people required. People were not adequately supported to participate in meaningful activities. People told us they were bored and some people were left for long periods of time without interaction or stimulation.

The managers spent much of their time on non-management tasks, or supporting the staff team to provide care to people. Not all staff received relevant training and supervision that supported them in their roles to deliver effective and safe care.

Quality assurance systems were not always effective. Some areas of improvement had been addressed, but other concerns had not been identified or actioned. The provider had not given adequate time, mentoring and support to the new managers to ensure they developed the skills and knowledge required for the role.

The provider had made some of the required improvements from our last inspection, however at this inspection we identified nine breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2010, which corresponded to seven breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. The provider was also in breach of one regulation of the Care Quality Commission (Registration) Regulations 2009. You can see the action we have asked the provider to take at the back of this report.

 

 

Latest Additions: