Aspire Hub 3

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 61 (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 did not consistently ensure that people were at the centre of their care and treatment decisions, nor did they always work in partnership with individuals to respond to changes in their needs.

Although leaders and staff understood the principles of person-centred care and were committed to delivering it, this was not always reflected in practice. People were supported to personalise their homes, but care plans did not consistently capture recent changes in care and support needs. While some care plans included relatives’ views, there was limited evidence of how people or their relatives were actively involved in reviews.

We also found gaps in monitoring where required, such as food and fluid intake. These omissions placed people at risk of harm and demonstrated a lack of robust systems to ensure care remained responsive and aligned with individual needs.

There were shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, meaning care was not always joined-up, flexible, or supportive of choice and continuity.

When people received care from the same staff, this worked well. However, due to staffing shortages, agency staff were frequently used. Although the provider tried to maintain consistency by using the same agency staff, this was not always possible, leading to variations in the quality and continuity of support.

Where professional advice was provided, it was generally followed. However, this input was not always clearly documented in care plans, resulting in gaps and inconsistencies that could impact the delivery of safe and effective care.

The provider ensured that people received accurate, up-to-date information in formats tailored to their individual needs.

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.

The provider offered a range of easy-read documents and used appropriate communication techniques during meetings to capture people’s feedback. The Registered Manager confirmed that, where alternative formats were required, they would source the most suitable option for the individual.

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.

The provider had a complaints and compliments policy, and a matrix of complaints and compliments was shared during the assessment. We saw that appropriate action had been taken. During our assessment, visit one person spoke up about an incident that had happened, the evening before, action was immediately taken by the registered manager this evidenced the person had felt confident in raising the concern and that the concern would be dealt with appropriately.

We were provided with evidence of resident meetings taking place that included discussions about what was working well, what wasn’t working well, including if there were any repairs needed in people’s homes.

A relative told us, “I receive surveys, I don’t always complete them, I suppose I should, but everything is fine.”

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

The provider did not consistently ensure that people could access the care, support, and treatment they needed at the right time.

Care records lacked essential information for monitoring health needs, such as catheter care, and staff were not always trained in managing specific conditions, including diabetes. This created a risk that people might not receive timely or appropriate care.

Following the assessment, we requested assurances to mitigate these risks, and the provider confirmed that action would be taken to address the shortfalls.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people most likely to experience inequality in their care and tailored support and treatment accordingly.

Leaders and staff recognised the barriers faced by people living with a learning disability, autism, or other diagnoses and provided relevant training to address these challenges. Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of equality, diversity, and human rights and explained how they ensured individuals were treated fairly and with respect. One staff member told us, “I treat everyone as an individual and adapt my support to the situation rather than giving everyone the same support.”

Staff also knew how to access essential information in medical emergencies to promote positive outcomes.

Some people had advance care plans in place that addressed deteriorating health, end-of-life care, and funeral arrangements. However, this was not consistent across the service. Where plans were in place, they did not always provide sufficient evidence of how the person had been involved in decisions about their future, including their resuscitation status.

Some staff members had received end of life training; however, this had not been cascaded to all staff members. Staff members fed back that they felt, this was a shortfall in their training requirements.