Aspire Hub 2

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 75 (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 made sure the people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them.

The management team carried out a detailed assessment of the people’s needs prior to moving in, to ensure they were well suited to the environment as well as considering compatibility with other people who lived within the service. We saw assessments were detailed and captured the people’s wishes and needs, capacity, communication, and things that were important to them, for example, personal relationships.

People’s history was included in care plans which had been gathered from the person, relatives and professionals. This provided a holistic view of the people.

The provider planned and delivered the peoples care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People were supported to safely navigate relationships with others and encouraged to broaden their social network through community activities. Staff encouraged people to engage in activities that were meaningful to them. Staff recorded daily notes which provided clear information on the people’s activities, welfare and presentation, and engagement which supported with providing an overview of the people’s day to day life and made it possible to identify any themes.

Care plans contained detailed information on how best to support the people to ensure what was important and what mattered to them was included in their day-to-day support.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They appropriately shared information when the person was supported by different services.

We reviewed records which evidenced effective engagement with external professionals to support positive outcomes for people and gain the correct care and support. This included working closely with social workers and advocates to ensure the people’s voices were heard during meetings and when decisions were discussed that affected their life.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported the people to live a healthier life and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People were supported to access a range of healthcare services, including GPs, dental services, opticians, and specialist professionals such as specialist nurses and speech and language therapists. Staff demonstrated a good understanding of people’s health needs, and support plans contained detailed information relating to both their physical and emotional wellbeing.

The management team explained how people were encouraged and supported to lead healthier lifestyles. One relative told us, “Their efforts have meant he’s not as reliant on medication. They helped his diet also and so he has lost weight.” We saw evidence of staff working alongside people to prepare meals and promote healthier food choices. Staff described how they encouraged people to make informed decisions about their diet, stating, “We support people to choose and cook healthier options. For example, if someone chooses fish and chips, we help them prepare a healthier version. However, we recognise that everyone enjoys an occasional treat.” This demonstrated a balanced approach to supporting healthier lifestyles while respecting people’s preferences and choice.

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They ensured that outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

We saw examples of staff monitoring care and treatment through the review of records and things that had been implemented to support with improved outcomes. Goals for people were identified through discussion with them, this included goals that, whilst they may not be attainable at this time, they were something that people could work towards in the future.

The provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering care and treatment.

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). In supported living services this can be done through the Court of Protection (COP). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed Community DoL and COP orders within the service. We found that staff and management worked within the MCA. Authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subjected to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives.

We saw capacity to consent was considered through documentation in support plans and staff had a clear understanding of capacity and consent. Staff sought people’s consent before entering their home or carrying out any care and support.

Observation of staff engagement showed they communicated with people using their preferred communication method, supported their choices., Where the person lacked capacity, the right people were involved in best interests' decision making in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.