Aspen Lodge Care home

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. This is the first assessment for this newly registered provider. At our last assessment under a previous provider, we rated this key question requires improvement. Under the new provider, at this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

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’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People told us they were involved in the initial assessment of their needs. Staff had documented their conditions, assessed risks and identified people’s preferences. Relatives told us communication from staff was good and they were informed of any changes to their family member’s needs.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. The staff team monitored people’s food and fluid intake where there was a risk of malnutrition or dehydration. Staff received training in nutrition, and they made referrals to the relevant professionals for advice and support when needed. One relative told us, “[Staff] try their best; my [family member] just doesn’t want to eat and drink. They write everything down what they have eaten and drank, they record it.”

Staff also used other tools such as MUST and Waterlow to review the level of risk to people of malnutrition and/or of pressure damage developing. A health professional reviewed all health needs regularly and there were good systems in place for monitoring changes.

People and relatives were happy with how staff worked and supported them. One person told us, “The care here is very good, and I only have positive things to say.” A relative said, “[Staff] will phone me if there is something they need to tell me about. For example, if my [family member’s] blood sugars are low, and they need to go into hospital. [Staff] are very helpful. If I email someone, they email back or phone me.”

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services. They used electronic care planning which enabled quick sharing of any updates and changes or when needing to share with other professionals in an emergency. People and relatives told us communication was good, and they thought the staff team worked well with each other. A relative told us, “[Staff] ring us if my [family member] is unwell and say what they are going to do. If we notice or they tell us they don’t feel very well, we tell [staff], and they sort it out.” Another relative said, “What I do like to see as well is the teamwork. I can see the teams are well coordinated and get on well. They are always smiling and friendly.” Professional also gave positive feedback about how the staff team worked with external teams. A professional told us, “The home works well with local authority and there are no concerns around management of the contract.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support. People told us they had access to various health professionals when needed such as doctors, dentists and hospital specialists. The staff had systems in place to help them identify when people’s health had deteriorated so they could act. A relative said, “I think it’s very well organised. My [family member] had issues where they needed antibiotics and cream; [staff] sorted that out. It’s taken a lot of pressure off me and my family.” Staff also worked with other professionals to improve people’s health. For example, a relative told us, “There was a district nurse going round yesterday. They said my [family member’s] injury was healing quite well.” Another relative said, “My [family member] has been having pain this week, they are having pain killers. [Staff] talked about it with me. They were talking to the doctors about it too.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. The staff monitored people’s care monthly to identify and changes. They sought people’s feedback about their experiences through surveys and meetings. The manager created action plans to implement new ideas to improve the care experience. People and relatives told us the manager and staff team were approachable for any feedback and communication was good. A relative told us, “If there is any meeting about my [family member’s] health, [staff] phone me and let me know and send a letter to me and my other relatives.” Another relative said, “I would say the majority of staff go over and above. They do try, they come in to help out, they try to make it good for the people there.”

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Staff respected people’s rights and choices. Staff were patient and gave people time to consider their options. People’s mental capacity to consent was considered and assessed. Where needed, independent support such as safeguarding or social workers were included in the decision-making process. Relatives confirmed where they had Lasting Power of Attorney, and the staff had a copy of that in people’s records for their awareness. A relative told us, “They contact us on a regular basis. My [family member] can make choices; the more complex decisions they take our advice on. They have made it clear to [staff] that they do not want to go to hospital again, it’s all written down.” A professional told us, “No concerns have been raised around DoLS for people.” The manager was in the process of introducing a new consent form that was paper based as people found that easier than the electronic system.