Aston House

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person centred care.

This service scored 54 (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 make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

Some people told us they felt treated like children due to the strict rules around the service. One person told us, “I am not allowed to come down before 6am, I have to stay in my room.”

There was no evidence of involvement of people in residents’ meeting agenda. The residents meeting minutes dated showed lack of person-centred care. For example, the meeting minutes stated, “Ticking board – please ensure that this is done on a daily basis, no tick = no food”, and “Attire – please ensure that you are dressed when entering the kitchen do not walk around in pyjamas or dressing gowns”. According to the meeting minutes people were asked to unclog a toilet and clean bodily fluids. The Nominated Individual told us this did not represent what was discussed during the meeting, however, the meeting minutes were displayed for people in the communal area.

Multiple care plans were not person-centred, lacking details and being of general poor quality. For example, where people required support to manage identified needs, their care plans and risk assessments did not always include information around risk management. Where information was documented, it did not always contain sufficient detail or guidance to ensure people’s individualised needs could be met.

The registered provider was in the process of updating all care plans at the service for people, to ensure they reflected up to date information.

On 19 February during the first day of our inspection, we saw the activities planner displayed in a communal area. The activity planner informed people about activities for the week commencing 2 February 2026. We brought this to the attention of the Nominated Individual. The old activity planner was still displayed on 27 February 2026 and on 10 March 2026.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Although the provider had systems and processes to ensure people’s care was regularly reviewed, as detailed in other sections of this report, processes were not always effective in ensuring people’s care records were accurate. This meant staff did not always have guidance relating to people’s needs to ensure they achieved positive outcomes.

As people did not always have care plans and risk assessments in place regarding their specific needs it meant staff did not always have up to date guidance available about people, which left them at risk of receiving unsafe support and potential harm.

Whilst we saw evidence people had access to relevant healthcare professionals they needed, sometimes the guidance given was not always followed up. For example, one person had DoLS in place. One of the conditions of the DoLS was for the registered provider to assess the person’s mental capacity for the restrictions detailed in the person’s care plan. We saw the service provider had not assessed the person’s capacity.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Some people living at the service had specific communication needs. However, it was not clear how the information was presented to the person to ensure they were able to make informed decision about their care. The service did not provide information in any additional formats. Residents meeting minutes and activities planners were provided in a typed format, with no alternatives being available.

People's communication needs were assessed and recorded within care plans, however, information recorded was brief and did not fully explore the impact of sensory loss, or difficulties in processing information, may have on a people and how they could be better supported.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result.

People were provided opportunities to discuss their care and provide feedback. The provider had conducted surveys and reviews with people to discuss their opinions; however, it was not clear what actions had been taken to address the feedback and comments provided.

Although there were regular residents’ meetings, we saw no evidence of people being involved in the agendas of those meetings.

People and their relatives told us they felt able to share feedback with the service. One person told us, “If I had to complain I would speak to staff or to my keyworker.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff coordinated people’s health appointments, where necessary accompanied them, and ensured information was shared accurately and the person’s needs were clearly understood. Processes were in place to monitor people’s health and identify when referrals to other healthcare professionals were needed. The processes were designed to ensure timely access to external healthcare support and to contribute to positive outcomes for people.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

As people’s care was not always tailored to their needs, we could not be assured people always received equitable experiences. For example, we found, care plans were not always in place or reflective of their current needs.

We also saw people who required support from staff when accessing community were not always provided with this and this meant they had a different experience to people who could access the community on their own. Some people did not have regular access to activities and did not experience equal levels of social stimulation.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

At the time of our inspection no one was receiving support at the end of their life.The provider made sure people had opportunities to discuss their end‑of‑life wishes. When individuals chose to share their preferences, these were recorded in their care plans. People’s end of life care plans in place which reflected some choices and preferences during this time.