During an assessment under our new approach
Date of assessment 09 to 27 July 2026. Aspire Hub 2 is a supported living service that provides care within people’s own homes. It supports a diverse group of individuals, including older adults, younger adults, people with learning disabilities and autistic people. At the time of this assessment, the service was supporting 90 people.
Not everyone using the service receives a regulated activity. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) only inspects services where a regulated activity is provided. This is help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do; we also consider any wider social care provided.
We assessed the service against the principles of Right Support, Right Care, Right Culture to determine whether people with a learning disability and autistic people were treated with dignity, respect and equality, and were supported to make choices, maintain independence and access their local communities. While we found these principles were generally being promoted, they were not applied consistently across the service. Further improvements were required, particularly in relation to staffing consistency, to ensure people received a more reliable and person-centred experience.
Independence was encouraged and supported. People were supported to have choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
People were protected from harm because staff understood how to identify, assess and manage risks while supporting people to remain independent. Although staffing levels were sufficient to meet people’s daily needs, the high reliance on agency staff meant that people did not always benefit from the continuity of care and established relationships that regular staff were able to provide.
Medicines were stored securely, stock levels were accurate, and people received their medicines appropriately. However, there were weaknesses in medicines documentation, including unclear ‘as and when required’ guidance for variable doses. These issues increased the risk of medication errors and reduced effective oversight of medicines management. People had regular health checks and medication reviews.
People were treated with kindness, compassion, and dignity, with their privacy and human rights consistently respected. Care and support were delivered mostly in a person-centred way, reflecting individual needs, preferences, and choices. Personalised care and support plans were maintained within a newly implemented electronic care planning system, which was becoming embedded across the staff team. This supported staff to deliver safe, outcome-focused care that was tailored to each person. People’s preferred methods of communication were understood, documented, and respected, enabling staff to engage with them effectively and in a way that promoted their involvement in decisions about their care and support.