You are here

Archived: Aspire Community Care & Support Inadequate

This service was previously registered at a different address - see old profile

This service is now registered at a different address - see new profile

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 10 March 2016

This inspection took place on 6, 7, 8 and 12 January 2015 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours' notice as they are a domiciliary care agency and we needed to be sure someone would be in. The service provides support to approximately 60 people living in their own homes.

The service had a Registered Manager. 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 service was last inspected in March 2014 when it was found to be compliant with the outcomes inspected.

People gave us mixed feedback about the service. People told us their regular carers were good and caring, but found that the service was not good when their regular carers were not available.

Care files were of a poor quality, they were task focussed and contained limited personalised information.

Risk assessments were insufficient. They were not robust and did not provide staff with the information they needed to reduce the risk of harm to people.

Where the service supported people with their medicines this was done by trained staff. However, associated medicines plans and records were poorly completed and people were at risk of not having their medicines administered as prescribed.

Where the service supported people with eating and drinking the information contained in their plans was insufficient and did not include information on specialist diets or how people liked to be supported.

Staff recruitment procedures were not robust and people were at risk of being supported by staff who were not suitable to work in a care environment. The service had not taken appropriate steps to ensure that staff were suitable to work with people in their homes.

Systems to monitor the quality of the service were not effective. The service did not consistently learn from complaints or incidents or use these to drive improvements to the service. The management and leadership of the service were not effective. We have made a recommendation about learning from incidents, accidents and complaints.

People felt safe and the service had safeguarding policies and procedures which were understood by staff. People had given their consent to their care and were involved in reviewing their care packages regularly.

People felt they were treated with dignity and respect. The service attempted to provide care workers who spoke the same language as people who used the service.

Staff received sufficient training and support to ensure they were suitably qualified to carry out their roles.

We found four breaches of regulations. You can see what action we have taken at the end of the report.

The overall rating for this service is ‘Inadequate’ and the service is therefore in ‘Special measures’.

Services in special measures will be kept under review and, if we have not taken immediate action to propose to cancel the provider’s registration of the service, will be

inspected again within six months.

The expectation is that providers found to have been providing inadequate care should have made significant improvements within this timeframe.

If not enough improvement is made within this timeframe so that there is still a rating of inadequate for any key question or overall, we will take action in line with our enforcement procedures to begin the process of preventing the provider from operating this service. This will lead to cancelling their registration or to varying the terms of their registration within six months if they do not improve.

This service will continue to be kept under review and, if needed, could be escalated to urgent enforcement action. Where necessary, another inspection will be conducted within a further six months, and if there is not enough improvement so there is st

Inspection areas



Updated 10 March 2016

The service was not safe.

Risks to people were not managed well and people were not protected from the risk of avoidable harm.

There were not enough staff to cover absences. Safe recruitment practices had not been followed. This put people at risk of harm.

People's medicines were not managed effectively and people were therefore at risk of not having their medicines administered correctly.

People told us they felt safe with their staff. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults and knew how to report on concerns.


Requires improvement

Updated 10 March 2016

The service was not always effective.

Care files did not contain sufficient information to ensure people were supported to eat and drink enough and maintain a balanced diet.

Staff had received the training they needed to carry out their roles and responsibilities.

People provided consent to their care in line with legislative requirements.

People were supported to access health professionals.



Updated 10 March 2016

The service was caring.

People told us the staff were caring.

People were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment.

People told us they were treated with dignity and respect. People's cultural and religious backgrounds were respected.


Requires improvement

Updated 10 March 2016

The service was not always responsive.

Care plans were task focussed and lacked personalised information.

People were involved in reviewing their care and where necessary care plans were updated.

People knew how to make complaints and complaints were resolved in line with the policy.

The service did not always learn lessons from incidents.



Updated 10 March 2016

The service was not well led.

The service could not demonstrate good management and leadership. Delegation of management tasks had been ineffective.

Quality assurance and audit processes were ineffective and did not identify poor practice.