Aspire in the Community Rushbrooke House

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

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 worked with people and healthcare partners to understand what being safe meant to them and the best way to achieve that. Staff concentrated on improving people’s lives while protecting their right to live in safety, free from bullying, harassment, abuse, discrimination, avoidable harm and neglect. The provider shared concerns quickly and appropriately. Staff knew how to raise a concern and report abuse, and the service reported appropriately. One person told us, “It’s good, [Name] seems happy enough. It’s a safe service.” Staff knew about Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and what this meant to keep people safe.

The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The MCA requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to make decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS).

The provider worked with people to understand and manage risks by thinking holistically. Staff provided care to meet people’s needs that was safe, supportive and enabled people to do the things that mattered to them.

Staff understood there were times when people became distressed and took steps to understand why a person was distressed and what support they needed to express their emotions. Staff spoke to and about people at times of distress in a respectful way and involved people when a person’s needs changed. One staff member told us, “I have good relationship with family they come, and we have a chat, we provide information, and they provide information to us.” One relative told us, “We are invited, and they ask for our opinions. I feel involved.” and “They run everything by us. It’s a well led service I would recommend it."

The provider made sure there were enough qualified, skilled and experienced staff, who received effective support, supervision and development. They worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Systems and processes were effective in supporting safe recruitment. Staff worked well together to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs. People told us they had good relationships with the staff. We observed interactions between people and staff; people appeared to be in control of their day and were relaxed. Staff were knowledgeable and showed a good understanding of people they supported. Staff had undertaken training in how to support autistic people, and how to support people with a learning disability and their skills and competency were regularly assessed. Staff told us,“I've had a series of training for learning disability and autism. We get enough training” and “When bank staff work at Aspire, it's people the service users know, and we have regular agency staff too that know the service users."

The provider made sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences. Staff involved people in planning, including when changes happened.

People received their medicines safely and as prescribed. There were systems and processes in place to ensure covert medicines (medicines disguised in food and drink) were assessed in line with the Mental Capacity Act and best interest decision meetings. These medicines were reviewed regularly by specialists. People’s care plans were person-centred and contained information to support staff to meet people’s needs, including how to recognise when people needed support taking their required. People’s risks were assessed and recorded. Staff had received training and regular supervision. Staff completed medicines administration records.