Aspire Hub 2

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (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.

The provider used a digital system to log accidents and incidents, and we saw that the management team reviewed these to identify any themes and trends. Any areas of concern, or good practice, were identified and shared with the wider staff team.

This practice of continued learning and ongoing improvement was embedded and supported ongoing good practice which improved the safety of all people living within Aspire Hub 2.

The provider worked with the person and healthcare partners to establish and maintain safe systems of care, in which safety was managed or monitored and made sure there was continuity of care.

The management team carried out an assessment of needs prior to care commencing and reviews and updates had been carried out to ensure information was current. They worked in conjunction with the people and other professionals. This ensured the people’s needs could be met by the service. Compatibility with existing people was carefully considered to ensure people were suitable to live in the same environment and minimise the risk of any conflict or other negative impact associated with people’s lifestyle choices and support needs.

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.

Staff had received appropriate training, had access to policy guidance on safeguarding and demonstrated good knowledge of safeguarding processes. Staff had a good understanding of things which presented the risk of harm to individuals and how to manage this. People told us they felt safe with one person stating, “My staff look after me, I wouldn’t change anything, I’m very happy here.”

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 told us they were supported to do the things that mattered most to them. Staff worked alongside people to ensure activities were undertaken safely and in line with their individual support needs. Risks were assessed appropriately and, where people chose to participate in activities that may be considered risky, assessments were completed to ensure those risks were managed in the least restrictive and most positive way.

People's care plans clearly outlined their preferred methods of communication, supporting their understanding and enabling them to make informed choices by providing information in a way that was meaningful to them.

Comprehensive risk assessments and mitigation measures were in place to keep people safe while promoting their independence and supporting them to engage in activities and experiences of their choosing.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. We saw staff carried out health and safety checks and engaged the people where possible in maintaining their home and a safe living environment.

We saw the people’s homes were reflective of their personality and lifestyle choices. People were effectively supported to ensure they did not put themselves or their tenancy at risk. Assistive technology was used to maintain people’s safety in their home when they were not being supported by staff. When asked how to use this or how to call for assistance should they require it, people were able to inform us of what they would do and told us that staff came quickly.

The provider did not always make sure there were enough skilled and experienced staff. Staff received effective support, supervision and development and worked together well to provide safe care that met people’s individual needs.

Staff received regular supervision and appraisal to support their professional development, which staff confirmed was effective. New staff completed an induction programme, undertook training, including person-specific training, and shadowed experienced colleagues to ensure they had the skills and knowledge required to provide safe care. Most staff told us they felt well supported in their roles and were encouraged to undertake further training to enhance their competence and professional development.

The provider had implemented safe recruitment processes and maintained an appropriate recruitment policy to support the appointment of suitable staff.

The service relied on agency staff to maintain safe staffing levels. While this ensured people’s immediate safety needs were met, the use of agency staff impacted on the consistency and effectiveness of support. Agency staff did not always possess the knowledge, skills, or experience required to meet people’s individual needs fully, particularly in relation to supporting people to access activities further from home or to take holidays and trips away. This limited some people’s opportunities to participate in a wider range of social and leisure activities. One staff member told us “Almost every day we have agency staff which I don’t think we should have. With agency or not the customers are still satisfised, but I believe we need more regular staff.”

The provider consistently assessed and managed the risk of infection.

Staff had access to appropriate personal protective equipment, and the provider had a current infection prevention and control policy to guide staff. Staff received appropriate training and ensured people were supported to maintain the cleanliness of their home.

The service did not alwaysmake sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs,capacitiesand preferences.

Medicines were stored safely and securely within the service and stock levels checked on the day of inspection were correct. Medicines were given appropriately to people, and documentation was in place to ensure creams were applied to the correct areas of the body. People that were prescribed ‘as and when required’ (PRN) medicines had protocols in place to ensure staff would know when to give these, but they did not always include clear information if the dose was variable, for example when one or two tablets were to be given. Some medication administration records (MARs) were handwritten and did not always have full directions and two staff signatures to ensure the correct item had been transcribed. This increases the risk of incorrect medicine administration, and reduced oversight of medicines management, potentially placing people at risk of harm.