Aspen Lodge Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

The service is no longer in breach of legal regulation in relation to people’s safe care and treatment.
 

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 service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

People told us they had confidence in the provider to respond to their concerns. A person said, “The owner will always listen and sort whatever was wrong out, it's important to him to put things right that's just the kind of person he is.”

Events within the home were recorded and discussed to prevent reoccurrence. Staff explained ways the team work together to ensure information about people’s needs was shared, for example, if a person was at risk of choking and how it was communicated with the kitchen team to reduce the risk of harm to people.

The registered manager reviewed accident and incident records, and the provider had introduced an audit that analysed a monthly summary of these records. This process enabled the provider to identify trends.
 

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services.

People and their relatives told us the service referred to health and social care professionals to ensure people had the healthcare and equipment they needed to be safe. A person told us, “If I need something, the staff never leave me waiting.”

We invited health and social care professionals to share feedback, and they told us people were safe. A staff member explained to us, “If a resident is coming from the hospital the nurses at the hospital would do a handover with us and let us know any care needs. When a resident is coming from another home, we communicate with them, so we have all the information we need about the person.”

People’s needs, and care requirements were detailed within their care plans and risk assessments. A summary was available if the person went into hospital or moved to another service. This had supported continuity in care for people.
 

The service worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. They concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The service shared concerns quickly and appropriately.

People told us what being safe meant to them and knew who to raise concerns to if they did not feel safe.

Staff demonstrated a commitment to take immediate action to keep people safe from abuse and neglect. This had included to seek support from the local authority safeguarding team. A staff member told us, “I feel confident the registered managers acts on concerns.” Another staff member stated, “The registered managers will tell us in a team meeting how the incident was dealt with and whether it was escalated to other professionals.”

Staff told us about improved training they had received following our previous inspection, “We have done new training on different types of abuse. Safeguarding is about protecting adults from abuse or neglect.”

We observed people to be happy and relaxed with the staff who supported them. People were able to move freely, and we observed equipment, such as walking aids to be in the reach of people.

Safeguarding concerns reported to the registered managers were recorded in detail and reported to the relevant external agencies, in line with relevant legislation.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, whether appropriate legal authorisations were in place when needed to deprive a person of their liberty, and whether any conditions relating to those authorisations were being met. Staff told us they knew who had a DoLS in place. A staff member said, “We have a few residents that have a DoLS at the moment and we are aware of the conditions. Whenever a DoLS has been granted we always communicate the conditions and document how we meet this.”
 

The service worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. They provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

People told us they felt safe, and their risks were considered. People felt involved in planning for their needs in relation to risks and keeping safe. A person told us, “I feel safe because I'm not in a house on my own. My bedroom is upstairs, I can get there no problem, it’s nice to keep my independence.”

Staff told us about daily tasks they completed to keep people safe. These included fire safety checks of the environment and reporting any concerns identified so these could be rectified.

Risks to people were managed and regularly reviewed so that people were protected and their wishes supported and respected. People had risk assessments covering all their care and support needs. Risk assessments were personalised, detailed and gave staff clear guidance on ensuring people were supported safely. Risks were managed using the least restrictive practices to ensure people were cared for safely whilst still maintaining their independence.
 

The service detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

Improvements had been made to the environment following our previous inspection, including new fire doors and the installation of automatic closures to keep people safe.

People and their relatives told us the environment was well maintained and equipment staff used was in good working order. People were encouraged to bring in their personal effects and belongings; they told us this was important to them.

The service was secure, and we observed checks taking place to ensure only authorised people could enter the premises.

Staff understood and followed the service’s health and safety procedures. Health and safety audits took place regularly and any areas for action were addressed. Checks of the environment and equipment were undertaken in line with the provider’s policy and legal requirements.
 

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

People told us they had confidence in the provider to respond to their concerns. A person said, “The owner will always listen and sort whatever was wrong out, it's important to him to put things right that's just the kind of person he is.”

Events within the home were recorded and discussed to prevent reoccurrence. Staff explained ways the team work together to ensure information about people’s needs was shared, for example, if a person was at risk of choking and how it was communicated with the kitchen team to reduce the risk of harm to people.

The registered manager reviewed accident and incident records, and the provider had introduced an audit that analysed a monthly summary of these records. This process enabled the provider to identify trends.
 

The service assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.
Staff confirmed the home had identified clear roles and responsibilities around infection prevention and control.

All areas of the service were clean, people told us staff kept their bedrooms clean and assisted with laundry. Staff used cleaning materials safely to prevent cross contamination. Soap and paper towels were available to ensure good hand hygiene.

There was a robust infection prevention and control policy in place. Cleaning schedules and cleaning audits were used, staff had a good understanding of the importance of infection prevention control.
 

The service had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. They listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice.

People told us they had confidence in the provider to respond to their concerns. A person said, “The owner will always listen and sort whatever was wrong out, it's important to him to put things right that's just the kind of person he is.”

Events within the home were recorded and discussed to prevent reoccurrence. Staff explained ways the team work together to ensure information about people’s needs was shared, for example, if a person was at risk of choking and how it was communicated with the kitchen team to reduce the risk of harm to people.

The registered manager reviewed accident and incident records, and the provider had introduced an audit that analysed a monthly summary of these records. This process enabled the provider to identify trends.