Aspire Hub 1

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People received care and support that reflected their individual needs, preferences, aspirations and desired outcomes.

Peoples support plans contained personalised information relating to people's routines, interests, communication methods, risks and support needs. Plans were person-centred and demonstrated consideration of choice, independence and involvement.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of person-centred care. One member of staff told us, "The customer comes first, that's always the customer will come first." Another explained, "It is not for us to make decisions. [Name] tells us what she wants and we will help her."

Activity records evidenced people accessed activities based on individual preferences and personal goals. During the assessment, we observed people choosing meals, discussing activities and directing aspects of their support.

Evidence reviewed demonstrated people were supported to achieve outcomes that were important to them.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People benefited from coordinated and consistent support from staff who understood their assessed needs and support requirements.

Staff described clear communication systems that enabled them to remain informed about changes in people's needs, including support plans, handovers, communication books and electronic recording systems.

Monthly rotas reviewed demonstrated staffing arrangements reflected assessed dependency levels, including one-to-one and two-to-one support where required. Staffing arrangements enabled people to access appointments, activities and community opportunities.

Daily records evidenced continuity of care and demonstrated people consistently received support in line with their assessed needs.

Whilst some relatives commented on staff consistency, records and observations demonstrated staff generally knew people well and understood their support requirements.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider recognised people's differing communication needs and took steps to ensure information was accessible and understandable.

Since 2016, all organisations delivering publicly funded adult social care have been legally required to comply with the Accessible Information Standard (AIS). This standard ensures that people with a disability, impairment, or sensory loss—and, in some cases, their carers—are given information in a way they can understand.

Information was shared through a variety of formats including newsletters, written information, activity timetables and YouTube videos. This enabled people to receive information in ways that reflected their communication preferences and individual needs.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People told us they knew how to raise concerns and felt able to speak with staff and management. One person told us, "If I'm unhappy, I tell somebody and they help me with anything that I need."

The provider completed surveys with people using the service, staff and relatives. Survey results were reviewed and used to identify areas for improvement and support service development.

Complaints and compliments received during the previous 12 months were reviewed. Records demonstrated complaints were investigated and outcomes recorded. Compliments had also been shared with staff to promote positive practice and recognise achievements.

Feedback from relatives was mixed regarding communication of complaint outcomes; however, systems were in place to gather and respond to feedback.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff demonstrated an understanding of adapting support to meet individual needs and communication preferences. For people who communicated non-verbally, staff used personalised approaches to support involvement in daily decisions and activities.

People were supported to access college placements, leisure activities, community groups and local amenities, helping reduce barriers to participation.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

The provider had an Equality and Diversity Policy in place which outlined expectations regarding respectful, inclusive and non-discriminatory practice.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of supporting people as individuals and promoting opportunities based on personal wishes rather than assumptions about disability or support needs.

Feedback from relatives highlighted positive outcomes achieved by people and improvements within the service. One relative told us, "Compared to when you came to inspect a year ago, it has changed really dramatically and really turned around."

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Support planning documentation reviewed evidenced consideration had been given to people's future aspirations, goals and desired outcomes. Support plans contained information relating to people's wishes, preferred activities and goals for maintaining independence and community involvement.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of supporting people to achieve outcomes that were meaningful to them and described involving people in decisions affecting their lives.

Whilst end of life care training amongst staff was mixed, evidence demonstrated some staff had previous experience and understanding of supporting people at the end of life. Management oversight through support planning and review processes supported the identification and discussion of people's future wishes when appropriate.