- Care home
Aspray House
Report from 7 June 2024 assessment
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
We received mixed feedback from relatives, 3 out of 4 told us they were not always happy with the service. Systems were in place to manage safeguarding concerns raised, however, we found risks were not always managed in line with people's identified risks. Relatives told us the service was not always proactive in addressing their relative’s health needs. We could not be assured that people’s healthcare needs were always addressed in a timely manner. Risk to people were assessed and covered areas such as, risk of falls, choking, pressure sores and malnutrition. However, risks to people were not always managed well. People and relatives were involved in the initial assessment process. Records confirmed this. The service worked in partnership with key stakeholders, improvements were required to ensure people received good care at all times and staff were supported in their role. Healthcare Professionals provided mixed feedback about the service. We received feedback from 3 healthcare professionals, all talked about areas for improvement, including communication and quality of information being unclear. Governance and management of the service was not always consistent due to the various changes to management. There had been several changes to management of the home over the past 12 months. This had an impact on the way the service had been managed. Previous managers had not stayed with the service long enough to bring about and sustain improvements. The current management team are keen to make improvements and the home manager is in the process of registering to become registered manager.
People's experience of this service
People experienced care that was not always safe. Mixed feedback from relatives and healthcare professionals confirmed this. Whilst some relatives were happy with the care provided to their loved ones, others believed the service needed to improve. The service was not always proactive in addressing people’s health needs in a timely manner. Mixed feedback about staffing levels meant we were not assured that staffing levels were always sufficient to meet people’s needs. Risks to people were not always well managed. People were cared for by staff who had been recruited safely and received mandatory training to carry out their role. There was a management presence at the home. However, changes in management over the past 12 months had an impact on how the service had been managed.