Archived: Aspen Court

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to person-centred care and need for consent.

This service scored 50 (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 make sure people’s care and treatment was effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. We identified a number of contradictions across people’s care records. This meant staff did not have an accurate record of people’s needs and therefore, how to support them effectively. One person had a 2-person arm support protocol and 3-person floor hold protocol in place. When we asked the managers about this, we were advised this person should not receive a 3 person hold, however during our site visits, we observed a restrictive hold being completed by 3 staff. Care records also did not clearly outline diversion techniques for staff to use with people, which made staffs approach towards challenging situations inconsistent. We also found care records contained some contradictory information despite being recently reviewed. Communication needs for people had also not been appropriately assessed. Where it was identified in care plans, communication tools should be used, we found no evidence of this. We were advised by the managers care plans were under review and would be improved to include more detail.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. People’s care plans included information on their hobbies, interests and preferences around food and hydration, but this was not always adhered to. People did not have menus or plans in place when they had shown an interest in wanting to eat healthier and enjoyed some aspects of cooking. Upon review of care records, people were not being supported to eat a balanced diet.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. They did not always share their assessment of people’s needs. Handover documents were not consistently completed which did not allow oversight, discussion or sharing of relevant information. There were no set core teams for people, and on most occasions, people were supported by unfamiliar staff which caused anxiety. There was some evidence of multi-disciplinary team working; as we were made aware from the provider that a multidisciplinary team had been arranged for a person at the home to discuss their care package at Aspen Court.

The provider did not support people to manage their health and wellbeing, so people could not maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff did not support people to live healthier lives, or where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.There was no evidence of meaningful activities aimed at supporting people to live healthier lives. People completed similar activities almost every day, which did not support their physical health, and there was not much exploring of other activities when people had shown an interest to do so. In addition, upon review of care records, we were not assured people were supported to maintain a nutritious diet.

The provider did not routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. People’s records, kept for attendance of medical appointments were poor, so we could not be assured actions or changes to people’s needs were being implemented. People’s weights were not consistently being monitored by the staff despite assessments showing this was a requirement. We received feedback from professionals regarding appointments being missed and there was a lack of clarity if referrals to health care professionals had been made as there was no evidence of this.

The provider was not consistently working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Mental capacity assessments had not always been completed appropriately. We reviewed 1 person’s MCA for use of restraints which was poorly completed and no outcome reached. There was also a lack of evidence around other people being involved in their mental capacity assessments and best interest decisions. One person had a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguard (DoLS) in place with set conditions. We found no evidence these conditions were being adhered to or if any discussions had taken place with appropriate people to why they were not being met. Communication between staff and people in relation to restrictions was poor, and restrictions had not been explained to people when the service had been advised to do so upon authorisation of a DoLS. We did observe staff gaining consent from people when they were providing them support.