Aspray House

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

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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.

The provider made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

Prior to people moving into the home, their needs were thoroughly assessed. These assessments considered not only social, health, emotional, and communication requirements, but also personal preferences regarding the care they wished to receive. The process also included consideration of protected characteristics and diverse needs, which people’s religious beliefs and preferences were specifically recorded and respected.

The registered manager told us the importance of being proactive when evaluating new referrals. The registered manager said, “It is essential to take a proactive approach from the outset when assessing new referrals. By gathering and reviewing all relevant information early on, we can identify any potential risks or specific needs, and plan appropriately to ensure the best possible outcomes.”

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

Assessments were designed to address multiple aspects of peoples’ wellbeing, encompassing physical health, cognitive abilities, and mental health. This approach ensured that all aspects of a person's wellbeing were considered during the evaluation process.

Care plans demonstrated clear and consistent evidence that people’s' wishes and preferences were documented. This included not only essential medical and support requirements, but also detailed information about how each person preferred to receive care.

The care plans captured people’s personal preferences, such as chosen waking times, favourite foods, hobbies, and preferred social activities. By recording these details, staff were able to deliver support that was tailored to each person, reflecting their needs and choices.

Care documentation indicated that people were well supported in managing their nutritional requirements. Specific tools were implemented to provide staff with both guidance and practical assistance. For instance, food and fluid charts were observed to be in use and had been completed accurately.

In addition, staff received training on the use of relevant assessment tools, such as the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), to help identify and address nutritional risks effectively.

During our visit, staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s needs. Observations showed that staff responded quickly and suitably whenever assistance was requested, fostering a positive environment. People told us they felt supported and valued. This attentive approach was integral to creating a welcoming and caring atmosphere. One person said, “The staff know how I like to be helped”.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Feedback from people highlighted the effective teamwork demonstrated by staff across the team. Staff members consistently engaged with both families and relevant professionals, encouraging a collaborative approach that ensured everyone involved felt informed and included.

Regular care review meetings were identified as a key mechanism for maintaining this engagement. The registered manager told us that these meetings promoted an open and inclusive atmosphere, where all participants were encouraged to share their perspectives.

Staff reported that they collaborated effectively as a team. Staff comments included, “We have handovers, meetings where we share concerns, ideas and make suggestions. Another staff member said, “We work well together as a team, the communication is positive.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Daily activities such as musical bingo, quizzes and dancing had been developed to promote both physical and mental wellbeing. People were actively supported to maintain a balanced diet through staff guidance and encouragement. Staff provided information and positive reinforcement to help people make informed decisions about their food, promoting a healthy lifestyle.

We received mostly positive feedback from relatives regarding how staff supported people in making health appointments. For example, comments included, “My [relative] gets support to access any health professionals when needed.” Another relative told us, “Yes, they seem proactive in arranging healthcare appointments, such as the dentist and GP, and they keep me informed about these.” Another relative said “Yes, the staff support my [loved one] to access health professionals and I am updated when this happens.” One relative felt that the service could be more proactive in supporting their relative in accessing health professionals. “Not proactively. Most involvement happens because our family pushes for it.”

Following the feedback provided, we engaged with the service in a discussion to further clarify concerns regarding how individuals were supported around health appointments. The provider responded by sending us evidence demonstrating their efforts to engaged with relatives around people’s health concerns and appointments. This evidence included examples of positive communication, meetings that had been held with people, and their relatives as well as with health professionals.

During our observation, menus were reviewed and it was noted that staff employed various strategies to empower people to choose their meals. Options were presented using visual aids, such as photos of available foods, and people were also shown the actual food on offer. This allowed for meaningful choice and increased engagement in the selection process.

The activity worker played a key role in encouraging people to eat fruit by making the experience enjoyable. For instance, a staff member dressed up as a piece of fruit, which created a lively and fun atmosphere. This approach led to laughter and enjoyment among those present, and also motivated people to try different healthy options. Such creative efforts helped to enhance willingness to explore and adopt healthier eating habits.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

The service had systems to monitor known healthcare risks, such as malnutrition and dehydration. Records were in place to monitor fluid intake for people.

We found records in place to support people with skin care, which most documentation was well detailed. However, for one person at risk of developing a pressure ulcer repositioning records were not always fully completed. Leaders showed us evidence on how they were addressing these issues as they had also identified that at times staff did not always record the support they had given in this area to people. This actions from the service confirmed that senior staff and managers monitor electronic care records throughout the day and address any gaps with staff to ensure identified care needs were met.

We also saw that care plans were reviewed regularly, and health professionals visited the service to help meet people’s health care needs.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment.

People were informed regarding consent, and the service adhered to the principles and requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Robust mental capacity assessments were routinely conducted to ensure that people’s' ability to make decisions was considered.

Staff explained how they sought consent from people before providing care. Comments included, “By explaining care clearly and gaining consent before providing support.”. Another staff member said, “I get consent by explaining the care clearly and making sure the person agrees before I start.”

All staff participated in regular training sessions designed to ensure that their knowledge and understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005 framework remained current and robust. These training programmes covered key aspects of the MCA, including the principles of capacity assessment, practical approaches to supporting people in making their own decisions, and recognising when someone may require additional support or advocacy.