Archived: Aspen Court

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.

This is the first assessment for this registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.

This service scored 45 (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 always treat people with kindness, empathy and compassion, or respect their privacy and dignity. During our visits, we observed more staff to be in people’s personal environments than needed. For example, 1 person had 3 agency care staff and 1 regular staff sat with them. We were advised this was because more agency staff than required had attended. Following a review of their care plan, it detailed how unfamiliar faces could increase anxiety for this person, but this had not been considered by the provider on this occasion. We were advised people expressed they did not want agency staff to work with them, and no action had been taken to try and address this. We did observe positive and kind interaction between permanent staff and people, but this was not consistently observed of agency staff who interacted very little with people. We received positive feedback from professionals and relatives about the service’s own staff, stating they knew people at the home well.

The provider did not always treat people as individuals or make sure people’s care, support and treatment met people’s needs and preferences. They did not always take account of people’s strengths, abilities, aspirations, culture and unique backgrounds and protected characteristics. There was not always clear evidence of people being involved in shaping their own care plans, and there was a lack of clear guidance on what people’s specific wishes were and what they wished to achieve from their care. Where people had made preferences or choices, this was not always adhered to. For example, we found in a person’s care records they had expressed to go for a drive a number of times, but this had not been actioned and no reason had been provided as to why. People did not always receive care in line with their care plans or preferences as there were gaps in people’s care records meaning we could not be assured people were receiving individualised care or support as and when they needed it. Staff reported people were not encouraged to make healthy or safe choices, rather they were left to choose what they wanted to do even though they had expressed a desire for staff support. For example, 1 person had expressed staff to remind them they had just eaten or when it was not time to eat to deter them from eating more, but we found no evidence attempts were made to deter them, and this person ate as and when they wanted.

The provider did not always promote people’s independence, so people did not always know their rights and have choice and control over their own care, treatment and wellbeing. On the days we visited, we observed people coming and going as they pleased and spending time in communal areas or staying in their own rooms if they wished, however there was no emphasis on completing tasks people had shown an interest in. For example, one person enjoyed going out to get fresh fruit and vegetables, but we found no evidence of the person participating in this activity. People were also not supported to do tasks such as preparing their own meals or household tasks. For the activities people were doing, whilst they were led by the person, they were limited and repetitive, for example one person sometimes visited the pub 2 times day and was not encouraged to do other activities when their care plan included a list of hobbies and interests.

The provider did not listen to or understand people’s needs, views and wishes. Staff did not respond to people’s needs in the moment or act to minimise any discomfort, concern or distress. There was insufficient guidance available to staff to ensure they had clear information to respond appropriately if people were at risk. For example, 1 person who regularly banged their head required medical assistance when they did, however, the protocol for this was not in the persons care plan or home. Despite this we saw evidence staff had gained medical assistance in these instances. Where people were at risk of constipation, bowel monitoring charts were not completed consistently so staff were not aware if and when they needed to contact medical services. Following a review of incidents, we found staff were not following guidance which could place people at more risk. For example, 1 person was not allowed to complete a planned activity as they had presented behaviour that may challenge which could have increased anxieties and risk of harming others or objects around them.

The provider did not always care about or promote the wellbeing of their staff. They did not support or enable staff to deliver person-centred care. Staff reported they did not feel confident to support people at the service due to the changes implemented quickly and a lack of communication. For example, staff told us changes had been made to the restraints used at the service before we had commenced our assessment, and no explanation was provided to staff as to why. One person who was known to be challenging towards new or unfamiliar staff, however there was no clear information how this should be managed safely when unfamiliar agency care staff continued to work with them. We were advised by staff that they tried and avoided conflict during their shift to make it easier. For example, one staff member told us rather than discouraging a person from doing something, staff allowed them to do as they wanted as the person could physically assault them.