Aspire Hub 3

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

This service scored 65 (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 consistently treated people with kindness, empathy, and compassion, while respecting their privacy and dignity. Staff also demonstrated courtesy and respect when working with colleagues from other organisations.

Relatives shared positive feedback about the service. One relative commented, “I’ve always seen them being kind and caring; they are always welcoming,”

During our observations, we saw staff interacting warmly and respectfully with the people they supported. Staff were attentive, compassionate, and committed to delivering high-quality care. One staff member told us, “I want to make sure people have everything they need. I love my job.”

The provider ensured that people were treated as individuals, tailoring care, support, and treatment to meet their specific needs and preferences. Staff considered people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, cultural background, and protected characteristics when delivering care.

Staff demonstrated a good understanding of the people they supported, including their hobbies, routines, and personal choices. We observed staff interacting patiently and respectfully, which helped people feel valued and understood.

Relatives told us that regular staff knew their loved ones well. However, feedback about agency staff was mixed. While relatives felt agency staff were kind and caring, they noted that these staff did not always have the same level of familiarity with individuals.

The provider promoted people’s independence, so people knew their rights and had choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing.

People’s care plans provided some detail about what they could do for themselves and where they required support from staff. Staff promoted independence, choice and control and this was confirmed by a relative who told us, “[Person] chooses what they want to do each day.”

Staff made sure they involved people as much as possible in domestic tasks but sometimes it would be a split task. For example, a staff member told us, “When making a meal we share the task, you wash the potatoes while I peel the carrots.”

A mobility car was available for some of the homes and staff supported people to go out in the car to take part in activities or events, at the time of the visits this was not working however this was fixed promptly and people told us they went out in the car regularly. Staff told us people also used the bus, a taxi or walked when this suited the activity they are doing better, or when the car was being used by others.

We found people took part in a range of activities that they chose and enjoyed.

One person told us they were involved in recruiting new staff for the service. They were proud of this and told us what questions they asked and what they looked for in new staff members. This meant people had some choice about the staff recruited to work at the service.

The provider did not consistently listen to or fully understand people’s needs, views, and wishes. Staff did not always respond promptly to people’s needs or act to minimise discomfort, concern, or distress.

During our assessment, it was evident that regular staff knew the people they supported well and were often able to anticipate their needs. However, care plans did not always contain clear or comprehensive information to guide staff in meeting those needs quickly and effectively.

While we observed staff being attentive and responsive in most cases, we identified a significant shortfall in one instance where catheter care was not monitored or managed appropriately. This failure placed the person at risk of infection and illness. This was brought to the attention of the registered manager who took immediate action.

The provider did not consistently prioritise staff wellbeing or fully support them to deliver person-centred care.

Although systems were in place to provide staff support and some supervision was carried out, staff told us they did not always feel listened to and that concerns were often dismissed.

Staff confirmed they had access to an employee assistance programme and some benefits through the provider, but these measures were not always sufficient to ensure staff felt valued and supported in their roles.