Aston House

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

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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 60 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. Staff did not always treat colleagues from other organisations with kindness and respect.

People provided us with mixed feedback about their experience of living at Aston House. While some people praised staff, their kindness and compassion, other people told us they do not feel supported by staff. Their comments included “I’m not really impressed. They could listen to me more” and “I sometimes feel like a kid here.”

We observed staff treating people in a caring and compassionate way. People appeared comfortable around staff.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics.

Information contained within people’s care plans and risk assessments was not always precise, up to date or person-centred. People’s individual histories, culture and preferences had been recorded, however, sometimes they were not detailed enough or corroborated with healthcare professionals to determine the level of support required. People had their own belongings in their rooms and access to things like books which interested them. However, people's individual risks, skills, goals and interests did not guide how they were supported day-to-day.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

Some people could not be assisted by staff to enjoy activities of their choice safely. People were not always supported to be involved in decisions about their care and support. We saw there were residents’ meetings, however, there was no evidence of people contributing towards the agenda or to the discussion of the meetings. The lack of people’s voices in the meetings meant many individuals were not always able to speak up or to share their opinions. We saw people were encouraged by staff to maximise their independence. For example, they were encouraged to be responsible for their own laundry or other tasks related daily living.

The provider did not always listen to and understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not always respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress.

We received mixed feedback form people on staff being able to support them with their immediate needs. One person told us, “If (there is something) urgent, usually (staff help me) straight away. Usually quite good. It can take up to an hour.” However other people told us, “I have to wait until they are not busy” and “When I get up, I make a noise, otherwise they wouldn’t know I’m in pain”.

Some staff told us they did not feel confident they received appropriate training to meet people’s specific mental health needs.

There was insufficient oversight and monitoring to ensure people’s needs were being met promptly. Daily records were not routinely reviewed or audited, which meant we could not be confident people’s immediate care needs were consistently addressed.

However, we observed staff interacting with people in a respectful and sensitive manner when providing assistance.

The provider cared about and promoted the wellbeing of their staff and supported and enabled staff to always deliver person-centred care.

Staff told us they felt supported by the nominated individual and by the acting manager. A member of staff told us, “I support [nominated individual], and [nominated individual] supports me.” Staff members felt the providers policies and procedures supported their individual wellbeing. This meant we were assured the provider cared about and promoted a culture which considered the wellbeing of staff.

Staff received regular supervisions and were involved in team meetings. However, some staff told us they did not find team meetings very useful due to the meetings being more business focused rather than being focused on people and their needs. Some improvements were required to ensure all staff were supported with their professional development.