- Homecare service
Aspire Hub 3
Assessment report published 4 February 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment 24 November to 9 December 2025. Aspire Hub 3 is a supported living service that provides care within people’s own homes. It supports a diverse group of individuals, including older adults, younger adults, and people with mental health needs, eating disorders, drug or alcohol dependency, sensory impairments, learning disabilities or autism, and physical disabilities. At the time of this assessment, the service was supporting 50 people.
Not everyone using the service receives a regulated activity. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects services where a regulated activity is provided. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do; we also consider any wider social care provided.
We assessed the service against the Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture guidance to determine whether the provider ensured that people with a learning disability and autistic people were treated with respect, equality, dignity, and given choices, independence, and access to local communities that most people take for granted. We found these principles were not consistently upheld, and further work was needed to improve the culture.
Although the registered manager had been in post for some time, the three service managers within the management structure were still relatively new to their roles. As a result, while governance systems in place had identified some improvement actions, not all required improvements had been identified, implemented or embedded into practice.
Audits carried out by the provider were not always effective. Governance and oversight arrangements were insufficient to ensure systems and processes were robust for assessing, monitoring, and improving the quality and safety of care. While improvements were underway with the introduction of a new digital system, more time was required to implement, embed and sustain a positive culture and effective management structure.
Information to support care and the administration of medicines was inconsistent and showed conflicting information in medication administration records (MARs), care plans, protocols for medicines that are taken ‘when required’ (PRN medicines), risk assessments and hospital passports. In some cases, the information documented was inaccurate, had insufficient detail or was no longer relevant. This meant there was a risk of people receiving their medicines incorrectly or inappropriate information being used to support their care which put them at risk of harm. The service has been responsive to the feedback we have shared, and leaders were taking remedial action to address the shortfalls we identified.
We identified breaches of regulation in relation to safe and effective treatment and good governance. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns we found during this assessment.
People's experience of this service
The principles of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture were not consistently upheld, and further work was needed to ensure the service had the right culture.
Overall, feedback from people using the service and their relatives was mostly positive. Most people expressed satisfaction with the support provided by experienced staff, highlighting strong, trusting relationships and praising staff for their professionalism, kindness, and the responsiveness of the management team. However, some relatives raised concerns about the knowledge and preparedness of new and agency staff or where staff had moved between homes and were supporting people that were new to them. One relative commented, “The staff that know [person] are good, but I do not feel that not all staff have the correct information before they come into the home.” This meant that information and important details regarding the person’s needs could be missed. These concerns indicated that improvements were needed in the induction and training of new staff, particularly around understanding people’s communication needs and the diverse needs of the people they supported. People told us they knew how to raise concerns and felt confident that issues would be addressed appropriately by the registered manager. Most people reported feeling safe and expressed trust in the staff supporting them. People were mostly actively involved in making choices about their care and some people told us they participated in planning and reviewing their support. During our observations, staff promoted dignity, privacy, and independence, ensuring care was delivered respectfully.