Archived: Aspen Court

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.

This is the first assessment for this registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. Care plans had not been updated to accurately reflect people’s needs, and there were inconsistencies within care records. Although we were unable to obtain feedback directly from people, our review of records and incident reports showed that one person became increasingly anxious when they were unable to take part in an activity or were asked to do something they did not enjoy. This demonstrated that the provider’s systems were not effective in making sure people, and their relatives where appropriate, were involved in developing their care plans.The provider had recognised the need for personalised activity plans but were still in the process of developing and implementing these.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity. Due to significant changes in management, relatives and staff felt this had impacted the care they provided to people. Staff shared examples of what they used to do with people, but as staff were not consistent, they no longer did this. Staff felt there was no direction for them in supporting people and with high use of agency care staff, they were not able to provide people with continuity.

The provider did provide information in different formats that were tailored to meet individual needs. A number of easy read documents were shared with us that the provider could provide to people if needed. However, care documents were not in an accessible format, and we were not assured people had access to their care plan if needed. During our observations, we found people were not supported to make choices according to their needs and wishes with formats tailored to individual needs. For example,1 person who had limited vocabulary used to have picture cards in place to support with meal choices, however during our observations staff verbally asked what they wanted to eat. Staff advised us they would wait for this person to respond or may take them to what they want.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. Relatives did not comment on day-to-day communication with staff but told us they had raised concerns in the past which were only addressed after some delay. We also found no evidence of resident meetings or other systems to gather people’s views, which limited opportunities for people to influence their care and the way their home was run.

The provider did not always make sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We were not assured people had been supported to access their routine health appointments. People were also not supported to overcome barriers. One person with mobility needs was not supported to explore alternative ways of meeting those needs whilst decisions about their future accommodation were being made. Staffing levels at the home did not ensure people’s needs were always met. Staff had access to an on-call system should they need additional support; however, this system was not effective as staff advised us managers did not provide support or guidance when they had called.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who were most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes, people with protected characteristics were not being supported to achieve good levels of care. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this. People were not supported to try new hobbies even when they had expressed an interest in doing so. The provider could not evidence how they had reviewed people’s daily care to understand and improve people’s quality of life. Support was not delivered in a way that respected people’s identities, preferences and routines.

People were not supported to plan for important life changes, so they would not have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life. People’s care plans did not include information about their last wishes and preferences. End of life care plans were not in place and there was no evidence discussions had been offered or documented to explore people’s wishes, values, or preferences for future care. The absence of this information limited the ability of staff to deliver care that aligned with people’s individual priorities, particularly in the event of a health crisis or deterioration and a time when they may not be able to make decisions for themselves.