Aspen Lodge Care home

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 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 needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 68 (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 promoted care that made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices but did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in their needs. We received mixed feedback about how people were involved in reviews of their care and records did not evidence inclusion. For example, 1 person told us, “Originally the first month, there was a book there I could read that for updates. Now the staff all walk around with a [handheld electronic care device].” Another relative said, “We were involved when my [family member] first went. Their care plan is accurate. They have a folder that is accessible for us to see anytime. Nothing is being kept from you.”

We also had mixed reviews about how people were supported to spend their time in line with their known preferences. Some people chose to not be involved in group events and preferred to spend time in their bedrooms, but other people told us they would like more to do and staff to spend more time with them. One person said, “I think [staff] are doing their best but often we have ‘TV days’. My relatives come and play cards with me which is a nice change.” A relative told us, “My [family member] doesn’t get out of bed very often, which is a shame. The last time I saw them out of bed in a chair was last May. I would like to see them out of bed more, I think it would be time consuming for [staff] though. I have mentioned it; my [family member] is observant and it would be nice if they could get out of the same four walls.”

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’s care plans reflected any individual religious, cultural or dietary needs and these were fully respected. The staff ensured the correct information was handed over to other health professionals where appropriate for a consistent approach. A relative told us, “They care. I’ve got experience of quite a few care homes. Around this area, it is the best.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. They displayed informative posters, and information was given in different ways such as in person, by letter, email or phone call. Confidentiality was respected and information was stored securely so only people who had a right to access it could do so. People were satisfied the communication was good and if they did not understand something, they were able to ask any of the staff or the manager. A relative said, “[Staff] tell you. They give you a letter and then explain it.”

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff informed people about their care and told them when things needed to change. People told us they felt able to complain and when they had done the issues were quickly resolved. A relative said, “It is very good. There was an issue with a person going into my [family member’s] room, that was sorted out.” Another relative told us, “I’ve never had any complaints; they always phone up if there is anything.” The manager was keen to gather people’s views and offered opportunities to do this by using surveys and holding regular meetings with people and those important to them. They used the feedback to develop action plans to improve the care experience. One relative said, “There is a new manager who took over a couple of months ago. I was invited to a meeting. They have asked if I was happy. I said, “Yes, if we weren’t you would know.” Another relative told us, “They send an occasional questionnaire. I’ve not been to any meetings, if I had concerns, I would take it up there and then.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. They supported people to attend local appointments and worked with health professionals to agree treatment plans, Staff ensured other professionals understood how best to communicate with people so they were heard and could express their wishes. Staff were aware of the potential for discrimination and knew how to support people’s rights.

Records did not clearly evidence how staff had reviewed information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and analyse this to identify lessons learnt. This meant they did not have information that would help them tailor people’s care plans in relation to accessing local health services and other facilities. There were no reasonable adjustment or mental health crisis plans in place to support a smooth and discrimination free experience.

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. People were supported to identify and record their wishes in the event of illness, death and dying to ensure staff were aware so this could be respected. Where people did not yet wish to discuss this topic, that was also recorded