Archived: Aston House Residential Care Home

We last inspected Aston House Residential Home in April 2014. The service met all the regulations we checked at that time.

There was a registered manager in post. 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.

The registered manager did not carry out audits of medicines to monitor the stocks of medicines. We have made a recommendation about the management of medicines. People were supported to take their medicines safely. Staff were trained in the safe administration of medicines. People we spoke with told us they had no concerns about their medicines.

Quality checks and audits were carried on some aspects of the service out to identify how the service could improve and action was taken to make improvements when necessary.

Staff were trained in how to protect people from abuse. Staff knew how to identify signs of abuse and to report any concerns to ensure they protected people from potential harm. Staff understood the provider’s safeguarding procedures to follow in case of abuse. Staff knew how to whistle blow about poor practice.

Staff assessed risk on people’s safety and well-being. Risk assessments were centred on the needs of each person. Staff had guidance to reduce the identified risks and steps to follow to make sure people were protected from harm.

Accidents and incidents were recorded and monitored to identify how to minimise the risks of a recurrence. There were enough numbers of sufficiently qualified, skilled and experienced staff to meet people's needs safely. Staffing levels were dependent on people’s needs and the staff skills required to provide safe care. The provider followed robust recruitment processes to ensure staff recruited were suitable to support vulnerable adults.

Staff knew each person well and understood how to meet their needs. Staff had established positive relationships with people. Staff carried out assessments to identify people’s health needs and the support they required before and after they started to use the service. Staff regularly reviewed people’s health and had updated their support plans when their needs changed. This ensured that the staff could provide effective care in line with people needs and preferences.

Support plans were developed and showed how staff should deliver people’s care. The registered manager ensured staff followed guidance in place to promote people’s well-being. People received their care as planned and recorded in their support plans. Staff supported people to develop and maintain their independent living skills.

Staff had attended relevant training to provide them with the knowledge and skills to meet people’s needs. The provider ensured staff received further training specific to the needs of the people they supported. Staff felt well-supported by the registered manager in their role. All staff had received regular supervision to enable them to carry out their role effectively. Staff received an annual appraisal of their performance and training needs.

People’s care was provided in line with principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff were trained in MCA and were knowledgeable about the requirements of the legislation. People’s mental capacity assessments were carried out and meetings held in their ‘best interest’ when appropriate. People gave consent to the care they received and staff respected their wishes if they declined support or changed their mind.

People enjoyed the meals prepared at the service and could choose what they liked to eat. Staff involved people in menu planning and ensured people made informed choices that promoted a healthy lifestyle option. Staff knew about people’s dietary needs and preferences.

People health needs were met and staff made referrals on time to health care professionals when needed. People received the support they needed to attend healthcare appointments for their well-being.

Staff treated people with respect and upheld their right to privacy, dignity and individuality. People received their support in a kind and caring manner. People and their relatives were involved in planning and delivering of people’s care and support.

The registered manager sought people’s views about the service, listened to and acted on their feedback. People, relatives and visitors completed questionnaires regularly and action was taken in response to their views. People understood the provider’s procedure of how to make a complaint and felt confident to approach managers and staff with any concerns they might have.

Staff told us they felt valued and supported by the managers. The registered manager and the staff’s approach promoted a culture of openness and honesty.

We carried out this inspection to look at the care and treatment that people who used the service received.

This inspection was carried out by one person.

As part of our inspection we spoke with the providers/manager, and care staff available during the inspection. We also looked at two care plans and other documentation within the home.

Not everyone living in Aston House was able to tell us about their experiences living there. We spoke with five people, who told us 'I am much better now than when I first came here.' We were also told, 'I am quite an independent person, it is lovely here, the food is amazing.'

Everyone we spoke with told us they felt safe and expressed that they liked the staff and could talk to people if they were worried or had any concerns.

We considered our inspection findings to answer questions we always ask:

Is the service safe?

Is the service effective?

Is the service caring?

Is the service responsive?

Is the service well-led?

Is the service safe?

We found during our inspection that people were safe because their rights and dignity had been respected. Staff had attended appropriate training to ensure they knew how and when to report safeguarding concerns.

We saw that the home had systems in place to manage accidents and incidents, with evidence seen that there had been learning from previous incidents to prevent them reoccurring.

Is the service effective?

We found during our inspection that the service was effective. Staff we spoke with were able to tell us about people who lived in the home, and their individual needs. People were supported to maintain independence when possible.

People told us they felt involved in decisions about their care and could raise any concerns and these would be listened to and addressed.

Is the service caring?

We found during our inspection that the service was caring. We saw staff interacting in a positive manner, speaking to people in a calm respectful manner at all times. We saw that people were encouraged to participate in activities and responded to warmly and with affection by staff throughout the day.

Is the service responsive?

We found during our inspection that the service to be responsive. We saw evidence that when people's needs had increased, the manager had made appropriate referrals to outside agencies.

People who used the service and their relatives were encouraged to make their views known and raise any concerns if they arose.

Is the service well-led?

We found during our inspection that the service was well led. Staff that we spoke with told us they felt supported and received appropriate training.

People living at Aston House told us that the staff were kind, helpful and friendly.

During our inspection we found that people were involved in decisions about their care and treatment. Care plans were personalised and contained clear instructions on how people should be cared for and supported. The provider had ensured a good standard of cleanliness had been maintained throughout the home.

We spoke with staff who told us they attended regular training and felt their training needs had been met. We saw evidence that staff received regular supervision and annual appraisals.

A complaints policy was in place. Evidence was seen that comments and complaints were listened to and resolved in a timely and appropriate manner.

The provider had appropriate systems in place to assess, monitor and improve the service.