Aspen Gardens

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.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 72 (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 had a proactive and positive culture of safety, based on openness and honesty. Staff listened to concerns about safety and investigated and reported safety events. Lessons were learnt to continually identify and embed good practice. Management were open and honest about incidents and accidents in the service. They discussed anything that had gone wrong with people, relatives and staff, with a view to learning and improving the service. Staff told us learning from incidents was shared with them through handovers and meetings. Staff told us changes were made to people’s care to reduce the risk of safety incidents reoccurring. A staff member said, “If there is an accident or incident it will be discussed and appropriately changes made if necessary."

The provider worked with people and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored. They made sure there was continuity of care, including when people moved between different services. Systems contained accurate and up to date information to support safe care.

The service worked with other professionals and agencies to ensure people received joined up care. Staff worked closely with the extra care housing provider, for example, in relation to admissions to the service and any issues with the premises.

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. People and relatives told us they felt safe and could report any concerns to staff. They told us they had confidence the management and staff would act appropriately to help keep them safe. A person told us, “Definitely I’m safe, absolutely.” Staff understood safeguarding procedures and knew how to report concerns.

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. People had risk assessments that reflected their needs and gave safe guidance on how to reduce risks. Staff told us how they worked with other agencies, such as the housing provider, to help people manage risk. People were supported to understand risks, for example staff discussed fire safety and reporting safeguarding concerns with them.

People were able to make unwise decisions if they had capacity and understood the risks. For example, a person chose not to follow professional advice, and this had been risk assessed so the person could be supported as safely as possible while staff respected their decision.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. The provider completed risk assessments of people’s homes and the equipment used. These fed into support plans showing how staff should support people in relation to any risks. Checks of equipment were completed and records kept of when equipment had been serviced.

The provider liaised with the housing provider regarding the upkeep of the premises, and the registered manager was knowledgeable about ongoing repairs and redecoration. Staff assisted people to report concerns about their homes if needed.

Some staff told us that technology could be improved and the system used to document care did not always work well in all parts of the building. The registered manager told us this was a known issue, and the system was being upgraded to resolve these issues.

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. However, the provider had not maintained consistent recruitment records and could not evidence all staff had full recruitment checks in line with good practice. This area required improvement to ensure evidence was available to represent good recruitment practices for all staff and to ensure the provider was meeting its own policies. We raised this with the registered manager, and they took some immediate steps to update records. All staff had Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) and Right to Work checks, showing they were eligible to work and not restricted from working with vulnerable adults.

People told us there were enough staff to meet their needs, they received support from regular staff they knew. Although most people and relatives were happy with their support, some told us timings could improve. The provider monitored all visits and had been working with staff to ensure visits happened as planned. Everyone who received the service lived in their own home within the extra care scheme and some staffing flexibility was expected as staff responded when people needed additional support. Staff had been reminded to keep to planned times as far as possible. A staff member said, “People get their support on time, if a pendant (personal alarm) is pressed we respond quickly.” Audits reflected most visits were delivered within the agreed timeframe.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of it spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly.

People were supported to keep their homes clean if this was a requirement of their care. Care plans included infection and prevention and control considerations, such as use of personal protective equipment (PPE). People and relatives told us PPE was used appropriately to limit the risk of spreading infections. A person told us, “They [staff] always wear gloves and aprons."

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. Staff had training in safe administration of medicines and records demonstrated these were given safely. Staff were observed giving medicines and their competence to do so checked by a senior member of staff. Medicines audits were completed regularly which identified any errors and put in place lessons learnt to reduce the likelihood of issues reoccurring. People and relatives told us they got their medicines safely and on time. A person told us, “There have been no issues with my medication."