• Care Home
  • Care home

Aspen Court Nursing Home

Overall: Requires improvement read more about inspection ratings

17-21 Dodd Street, Poplar, London, E14 7EG (020) 7538 9789

Provided and run by:
HC-One Limited

Important: The provider of this service changed. See old profile

All Inspections

21 September 2022

During a routine inspection

About the service

Aspen Court Nursing Home is a residential care home providing nursing and personal care for up to 72 adults. At the time of the inspection 69 people were living at the service, including older people, people with physical health conditions and those living with dementia. The second floor can accommodate up to 26 people with nursing care needs.

Aspen Court Nursing Home accommodates people in one building across three floors, with each person having their own bedroom and en-suite bathroom. There were also communal living and dining rooms, a main kitchen, smaller kitchenettes on each floor and access to a secure garden.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Improvements were still needed with people's care plans and risk assessments as inconsistencies were seen across the records we reviewed. Records were not always clear about levels of risk or guidance for staff to follow to keep people safe.

People and their relatives were positive about the kind and caring attitudes of the staff team. One relative said, “The staff are very friendly and they show respect. [Family member] is very sociable and they have a good rapport, get on well together and have a good sense of humour together. They thrive on this.”

People were supported by staff who were dedicated in their role to ensure they received the care they needed. We observed a range of positive interactions between people and the staff team throughout the inspection. Staff responded appropriately, with patience, compassion and in a timely manner.

People were supported to have maximum 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 and their relatives told us they had been well supported throughout the COVID-19 pandemic and were updated if there had been any changes to government guidance or changes with visiting restrictions. One relative said, “They have been very good with this and ensured staff were wearing masks. They were providing tests and helping to keep us all safe.”

The manager had a visible presence and people and their relatives felt comfortable approaching them to discuss any issues or concerns. One relative said, “The new manager called me the other day to let me know her door is always open. I feel she has fallen into the job in a very caring way.”

People were supported to access healthcare services and had input from health and social care professionals if their needs changed. Health and social care professionals were positive with the improvements that were being made since the new manager had started.

Although feedback was positive about the changes that had been made by the new manager, not all staff felt supported or appreciated for their work. Some staff told us this impacted on the working environment.

Improvements had been made since the previous inspection and the provider’s monitoring processes had identified areas to be improved. The manager held daily meetings and carried out regular walkarounds to check on the care and support people received.

Incidents that occurred across the service were regularly notified to the CQC. However, safer recruitment practices were not always followed.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was inspected but not rated (published 21 July 2022). This is because it was a targeted inspection to look at a specific concern. We use targeted inspections to follow up on Warning Notices or to check concerns. They do not look at an entire key question, only the part of the key question we are specifically concerned about. Targeted inspections do not change the rating from the previous inspection. This is because they do not assess all areas of a key question.

The last rating for a comprehensive inspection was requires improvement (published 21 April 2020) and there were breaches of regulation. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve.

The service remains rated requires improvement. This service has been rated requires improvement for the last three consecutive inspections.

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about this service and to follow up on the action we told the provider to take at the last comprehensive inspection.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

Enforcement

We have identified a continued breach in relation to safe care and treatment. We have identified a breach in relation to recruitment practices. Please see the action we have told the provider to take at the end of this report.

Follow up

We will request an action plan from the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

22 June 2022

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Aspen Court Nursing Home is a residential care home providing nursing and personal care for up to 72 adults. At the time of the inspection 65 people were living at the service, including older people, people with physical health conditions and those living with dementia. The second floor can accommodate up to 26 people with nursing care needs.

Aspen Court Nursing Home accommodates people in one building across three floors, with each person having their own bedroom and en-suite bathroom. There were also communal living and dining rooms, a main kitchen, smaller kitchenettes on each floor and access to a secure garden.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

There were systems in place for safeguarding procedures across the home to ensure people were protected from the risk of abuse.

Staff were positive about the training and discussions they had around safeguarding and were regularly reminded about their responsibilities. Staff were confident in the management team dealing with any concerns they raised.

The management team were open and transparent when we discussed the concerns with them and the reason for the unannounced inspection. They were continuing to work with the local authority in response to an incident that led to this inspection.

We did not speak with any people who used the service as part of this inspection.

Rating at last inspection

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 18 April 2020) and there were two breaches of regulations. The provider completed an action plan to show what they would do and by when to improve.

Why we inspected

The inspection was prompted by a notification of a serious incident and information from the local authority safeguarding team. Following which a person using the service was alleged to have been subjected to a serious assault. At the time of the inspection this incident was subject to a criminal investigation. As a result, this inspection did not examine the circumstances of the incident.

The information CQC received about the incident indicated possible concerns about the safeguarding systems in place at the service. This targeted inspection examined those risks.

We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from this concern. Please see the safe section of this full report. The overall rating for the service has not changed following this targeted inspection and remains requires improvement.

We use targeted inspections to follow up on Warning Notices or to check concerns. They do not look at an entire key question, only the part of the key question we are specifically concerned about. Targeted inspections do not change the rating from the previous inspection. This is because they do not assess all areas of a key question.

You can read the report from our last inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Aspen Court Nursing Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to coronavirus and other infection outbreaks effectively.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.

19 November 2019

During a routine inspection

About the service

Aspen Court Nursing Home is a residential care home providing nursing and personal care for up to 72 adults. At the time of the inspection 68 people were living at the service, including older people, people with physical health conditions and those living with dementia. The second floor can accommodate up to 26 people with nursing care needs.

Aspen Court Nursing Home accommodates people in one building across three floors, with each person having their own bedroom and en-suite bathroom. There were also communal living and dining rooms, a main kitchen, smaller kitchenettes on each floor and access to a secure garden.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

People and their relatives were positive about the kind and compassionate attitude of the staff team. People and their relatives told us they had settled in well since they had moved in and were made to feel welcome by a friendly staff team.

We observed positive interactions between people and staff throughout the inspection, with staff responding appropriately to changes in people’s needs, including when they became distressed or upset.

People's care plans and risk assessments were not always clear about the level of risk or what actions were required to mitigate risks to their safety, with inconsistencies seen across the records we reviewed.

Positive feedback was seen in how people were supported at the end of their life, with numerous compliments received from relatives on how they had been cared for at this sensitive time.

Two dedicated wellbeing coordinators encouraged people to be involved in a range of activities and events within the home and in the local community.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible. The policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

People were supported to access healthcare services and appropriate referrals were made to the necessary health and social care professionals if people’s health changed. Health and social care professionals visiting during the inspection were positive about the care and support people received and felt staff had a good understanding of people’s needs.

People were cared for by a motivated staff team who felt appreciated in their role. Staff were positive about the support they received and the working environment, which helped to create a warm and welcoming home. Some staff described the home as their ‘second family.’

The management team had a visible presence and staff said they made themselves available when needed. The registered manager had daily meetings and walkarounds to check on the care and support people received.

Although we saw some improvements had been made since the previous inspection, the provider had failed to notify us about all the incidents that had occurred across the service.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was Requires Improvement (published 17 December 2018) and there were two breaches of regulations. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found enough improvement had not been made and the provider was still in breach of regulations.

Why we inspected

This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Enforcement

We have identified two breaches in relation to safe care and treatment and notifiable incidents. Full information about CQC’s regulatory response to the more serious concerns found during inspections is added to reports after any representations and appeals have been concluded.

Follow up

We will request an action plan for the provider to understand what they will do to improve the standards of quality and safety. We will work alongside the provider and local authority to monitor progress. We will return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

27 September 2018

During a routine inspection

This inspection was conducted on 27 and 28 September, and 12 October 2018. The first day was unannounced and the other days were announced. Aspen Court Nursing Home is a ‘care home’ that provides personal care or nursing care and accommodation for older adults. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. The Care Quality Commission (CQC) regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during the inspection. Aspen Court Nursing Home can accommodate up to 72 people and 68 people were residing at the service at the time of the inspection. The premises are purpose built and divided into three separate units. People are provided with a single bedroom with en-suite facilities, and the service provides permanent placements and respite care. The ground floor and first floor units can accommodate up to 46 people with personal care needs in relation to frailty due to old age and dementia. The second floor can accommodate up to 26 people with nursing care needs.

The previous comprehensive inspection of this service took place on 10, 11 and 15 February 2016. The service was rated overall as Good. Safe was rated as Requires Improvement, and effective, caring, responsive and Well-Led were rated as Good. There were no breaches of Regulation and one recommendation was made for the service to seek guidance from a reputable source about measures to prevent and control the spread of infection. This recommendation had been made as we had observed that a sluice room was not clean and staff had not always worn gloves and aprons as appropriate, which had placed people at the risk of infection.

We subsequently carried out an unannounced focussed inspection of this service in September 2017. This inspection was conducted in response to information of concern received by CQC from different sources in relation to how the provider ensured that people were provided with safe and appropriate care to meet their identified health and social care needs. We had spoken with the provider about the concerns at the service, which were being investigated through safeguarding protocols by the local social services. The provider had developed and begun to implement an action plan to address areas for improvement, as identified by the provider’s own monitoring system and feedback from external authorities. Although the sluice rooms were hygienically maintained and staff appropriately wore personal protective equipment to protect people who used the service from the risk of infection, other safety practices at the premises were not sufficiently rigorous. We had observed that two unlocked bathrooms were being used for storage of equipment such as wheelchairs, which placed people at risk of trips and/or other accidents. A linen chute was also unlocked and incorrect cleaning apparatus was being used by a member of staff. These issues were addressed by the provider at the time of the inspection.

At the time of the inspection there was a registered manager in post, who was present on all three days of our visit. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the CQC to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager commenced in her management role after the previous inspection.

The systems for managing and monitoring the administration of people’s medicines were not sufficiently robust to identify an incident where staff had failed to follow medicine instructions from a person’s GP to promote the person’s physical and emotional comfort, and other occasions when medicine was not signed for to evidence that it had been administered.

People told us they felt safe with staff, who had received safeguarding adults training and understood how to protect people from abuse. Safeguarding notifications were appropriately sent to CQC, in line with the law. Risk assessments had been developed to identify and mitigate risks to people's safety and welfare. However, some of the risk assessments were generic and did not address people’s individual needs and circumstances. The provider had implemented systems to enable staff to assess people's capacity to make decisions and support people to make their own choices, where possible.

Staff received training and support to undertake their roles and responsibilities. Aspects of the mandatory training were not up to date, however the provider had identified this and had scheduled training in place to rectify this. The training programme had a useful course for care staff to develop their knowledge of health care issues that impacted on the health of older people, but end of life care training was limited.

People were supported to eat a nutritious diet that took into account their preferences, and any cultural and/or health care needs. The catering staff met with people who used the service to check if they had any comments and suggestions about the food service.

Staff supported people to meet their health care needs and we received some positive comments from relatives in relation to how staff had escorted their family member to a hospital appointment or supported a family member to appropriately gain weight by adhering to a clinically advised diet. We also received negative comments from relatives about staff failing to provide adequate support to people, including a person was receiving end of life care.

Interactions between staff and people were positive. We received some mixed views from relatives in relation to whether their family member were treated in a respectful way that upheld their entitlement to dignity and privacy.

The care plans explained how to provide people’s care and support in practical terms so that new staff could follow the plan to provide safe care. However, there was limited information within the care plans to demonstrate that people’s preferences were taken into account so that their care reflected their unique and individual likes and wishes.

People were supported to take part in activities and entertainments. This included visits from key members of the local community, for example staff from the local fire brigade and a city farm within the borough had engaged with people who used the service as part of ongoing connections. The wellbeing coordinators were developing their knowledge and skills for working with people who were living with dementia.

People who used the service and their representatives were provided with information about how to make a complaint. We saw that the registered manager responded to complaints, however one relative had to try on several occasions to get an acceptable response to their complaint.

There were shortfalls with the quality of end of life care. Although the people we met during the inspection were comfortable, the complaint from a relative identified issues in relation to staff training and the ability of staff to communicate with relatives in a professional and sincere manner.

People who used the service and relatives were mainly positive about the registered manager's welcoming approach and leadership skills. Staff were unanimous in their comments about the registered manager's supportive management style. The provider had systems in place to monitor the quality of the service, support and advise the registered manager and listen to the views of people and staff. However, the quality monitoring was not rigorous enough to swiftly identify a range of concerns in relation to the ability of the service to provide consistently valued and reliable end of life care.

6 September 2017

During an inspection looking at part of the service

This focussed inspection was conducted on 6 and 12 September 2017. The first day of the inspection was unannounced and we informed the provider of our intention to return on the second day. Aspen Court Nursing Home provides residential and nursing care for up to 72 older people, many of whom are living with dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 59 people residing at the service, and three people were in hospital.

Our previous inspection of this service was undertaken on 10, 11 and 15 February 2016. This was a comprehensive inspection and the service was rated overall as Good. Safe was rated as Requires Improvement, and Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-Led were rated as Good. There were no breaches of Regulation and one recommendation was made for the service to seek guidance from a reputable source about measures to prevent and control the spread of infection. This recommendation had been made as we had observed that a sluice room was not clean and staff had not always worn gloves and aprons as appropriate, which had placed people at risk of the spread of infection.

We carried out this focussed inspection as the Care Quality Commission had received information of concern from different sources in relation to how the provider ensured that people were provided with safe and appropriate care to meet their identified health and social care needs. This report only covers our findings in relation to these areas. You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Aspen Court Nursing Home on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager commenced their position in June 2017 and was present on both days of the inspection.

Care and treatment was delivered in a way that was intended to ensure people’s safety and welfare. People reported that they felt safe with staff, who were described as being kind and caring. Staff understood their responsibilities to keep people safe and free from harm. Systems were in place to identify and manage any risks to people’s safety, and records showed that people received the daily care they needed to promote their health and wellbeing. People were provided with a clean and hygienic home.

People, and their relatives where applicable, were supported to participate in the planning and reviewing of their care plans. People’s views were sought through a range of approaches including annual review meetings, the ‘resident of the day’ system, residents’ meetings and formal surveys.

Information about how to make a complaint was readily available for people and their representatives, and complaints were fully investigated. However, not all of the complaints investigations satisfactorily evidenced that agreed actions for improvement had been fully implemented.

Positive views were voiced by people who use the service and relatives about the leadership style of the registered manager. We found examples of how the service needed to improve on the quality of its documentation for the reporting of accidents and incidents. There were clear processes in place to monitor and audit the quality of care and ensure that staff received appropriate guidance, training and supervision to satisfactorily meet people’s needs.

10 February 2016

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 10, 11 and 15 February 2016. The first day of the inspection was unannounced; the provider knew that we would be returning for the subsequent days. Aspen Court Nursing Home provides residential and nursing care for up to 72 older people, many of whom also have dementia. At the time of the inspection there were 59 people living at the service.

Our last inspection was completed on 14, 15, and 17 April 2015 and breaches of legal requirements were found. After the comprehensive inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements in relation to medicines management, staffing, risk management, infection control, good governance and consent. We checked whether the provider had followed their plan during this inspection to confirm that they now meet legal requirements.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

A new registered manager had been appointed since our last inspection and driven forward a series of improvements at the service. Robust monitoring procedures had been developed to ensure the care was of high quality. The team morale had improved and there was a positive and open culture at the service.

The provider had not done all that was reasonable to prevent the spread of infection because a sluice we observed was not clean and staff did not always wear gloves and aprons as appropriate.

People were protected from other risks related to their health and well-being because risk assessments were adequately detailed and updated to provide effective guidance to staff about how to mitigate such risks. People were kept safe from the risk of abuse by well trained staff who felt confident to raise concerns about poor practice.

The provider had used a robust recruitment procedure to employ staff suitable to work in the caring profession. The provider had appointed staff to newly created roles and had assured there were enough staff to meet people’s needs.

Staff developed caring relationships with people who used the service. People were supported to raise any concerns they held.

Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely. Medicines that were administered covertly or on an as required basis were well managed. People were supported to get enough to eat and drink and people had access to healthcare professionals as required.

The provider followed the latest guidance and legal developments about obtaining consent to care. Staff used a range of communication methods to support people to express their views about their care. There was evidence that people and their relatives were involved in planning their care and care records included information about people’s likes and dislikes. Records were updated in response to people’s changing needs.

We have made two recommendations about infection control and communicating with people for whom English is not their first language.

14, 15 and 17 April 2015

During a routine inspection

The inspection took place on 14, 15 and 17 April 2015 and was unannounced. At the last inspection on the 15 April 2014 we found the provider was not meeting the regulations in relation to care and welfare such as the management of medicines and consent. Following the inspection the provider sent us an action plan telling us how they were going to address the shortfalls.

During this inspection we found that the provider had not made all necessary improvements with regard to the management of risk.

The provider had made strides to comply with legal requirements contained in the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards but required improvements to obtain people’s consent.

Aspen Court Nursing Home provides personal and nursing care for up to 72 older people, many of whom also have dementia.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We found the service was not safe with the majority of concerns found on the nursing unit. Records demonstrated that the provider did not deploy sufficient staff at the service to meet people’s needs. We reviewed the payroll for 2015 to date and noted there were routinely less staff on shift than required under the provider’s procedures. The rota was irregular with staff working excessively long hours and shift patterns.

Medicines were not administered, stored or disposed of safely. Furthermore records were not completed accurately. We noted that morning medicine rounds finished late and people were at risk at receiving medicines at the wrong time and without a sufficient gap between doses.

The control and prevention of infections was not always well managed, for example, we observed bathrooms on the nursing unit were unclean but the residential units were clean and staff had completed barrier nursing training.

Staff had a good understanding of how to safeguard people from abuse, however, they were not supported to whistleblow or raise concerns to external agencies.

People were not protected from risks to their health and wellbeing because the provider did not have an effective system to identify and mitigate risks to people’s safety.

Accidents and incidents were well managed and we reviewed action plans that were used to reduce the likelihood of the event occurring again.

The provider supported people who whose behaviour may have challenged others. Staff demonstrated an awareness of how to defuse such situations.

The provider had a robust recruitment system which meant the staff were suitable to work with the people using the service.

Staff had a good understanding of the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The provider had worked hard to submit Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications to the local authority when people’s liberty was restricted to protect their safety. However, staff were not always supported to carry out care tasks in line with someone’s best interests because representatives were not always consulted and care plans did not always contain sufficient guidance.

People were at risk of poor nutritional intake because the provider did not always monitor that people were eating and drinking enough or receiving supplements as required.

The provider had good links with healthcare professionals and referrals were made in a timely manner. Care staff received specialist training to meet people’s needs. However, clinical staff required further training in areas such as catheter care to meet people’s needs effectively.

Some staff had developed caring relations with people and we observed positive interactions between staff and people using the service. However, at times we observed staff talking to each other rather than focussing on supporting the people for whom they cared. People were not always supported to make choices about day-to-day care tasks such as what food to eat.

The provider developed care plans based on clear and detailed assessments of people’s needs and preferences. These plans were updated following incidents to ensure staff responded to their changing needs. However, routine reviews of care plans did not always take place and time constraints meant staff were not able to respond to people’s emotional needs by spending extra time with people who were receiving end of life care.

People were able to take part in day-to-day activities at the services and celebrate festivals. However, a lack of human resources meant outdoor activities were limited.

Complaints were dealt with effectively when raised by relatives or healthcare professionals. However, formal methods to elicit the views of people using the service were not utilised effectively to form a basis of service delivery.

The provider did not always promote a positive culture because staff were not always supported to express their views about service improvement. We found there were discrepancies in quality of care between the units which had not been identified demonstrating the service was not set up to consistently promote good quality care. The registered manager did, however, make daily walks around the service and seemed to know the people using the service well.

We found six breaches of the regulations relating to consent, staffing, medicine management, safe care and treatment, infection control and good governance. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report. We have made a recommendation about supporting people to partake in hobbies in the community.

15-16 April 2014

During a routine inspection

Aspen Court Nursing Home provides accommodation for up to 72 people who require nursing, personal care and support on a daily basis. The home specialises in caring for older people with dementia.  There are three distinct units within the home. When we visited, 69 people were living in the home. The home is located in Poplar in East London. It is run by HC-One Limited.

People told us they felt well cared for and safe living at the home. Their comments included “I feel safe, my mum is well looked after, key worker is exceptionally special to us and mum” “the whole ambience was caring and cheerful”. The staff and manager are “wonderful”. Four visitors and one staff member told us there were not enough staff sometimes, which delayed people without support when they needed. This was supported by the staff records which showed that staffing levels were not consistent on all days.  

People’s medicines were managed to ensure they received them safely. However, people’s records showed that they needed ‘as required’ pain control support but their medication administration record (MAR) charts did not include any ‘as required’ medicine information PRN charts or care plans.  There was not a consistent approach to the identification and monitoring of pain and some people may not have received medicine for pain relief when they needed.  And some risk assessments had not been carried out for people who required them.

We found staff recruitment practices were safe and that the relevant checks had been completed before staff worked at the home.

We saw all communal parts of the home and some people’s bedrooms (with their permission) and found the premises and equipment were safe and well maintained.

People’s needs, preferences and choices for care, treatment and support were met. People expressed their views and were involved in making decisions about their care and treatment. The health care records we looked at demonstrated that people had access to external health care professionals’ support as required. People received care from staff who were adequately supported by the management.

People were treated with dignity and respect. All the people we spoke with told us staff were kind and caring. Staff had a good knowledge of people’s care needs and ensured their privacy was protected.

All the people we spoke with told us staff always asked them what they wanted to do before they received support with their care or treatment. Most of the people  who needed an assessment of mental capacity had not received one in line with the Mental Capacity Act (2005) (MCA) Code of Practice, to assess their capacity to make specific decisions about their care and treatment.

The provider took account of complaints and comments to improve the service. All relatives we spoke with told us they had total confidence in the manager.

The service had a registered manager. She provided strong leadership and people using the service, their relatives, care staff and visiting professionals told us the manager promoted a high standard of care.

The service promoted a positive culture that was person-centred, open inclusive and empowering. Staff told us they felt well supported by the manager and they understood their roles and responsibilities. The provider had effective systems to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service that people received. There was evidence that learning from these audits took place and appropriate changes were implemented.

The problems we found breached two health and social care regulations (Regulation 9 and Regulation 18). You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report.

25 November 2013

During a routine inspection

We spoke with 15 people who used the service, five family members, one professional visitor and six members of staff which included the registered manager. We observed people using the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). The people we spoke with told us they were happy with the care they received. One person said, "everyone is lovely and care for me. All the staff are very attentive and there are a lot of them." Another person said, "very comfortable here, the food is good and enjoy it a great deal." A relative told us, "staff are really good, can't fault. I was involved in the assessment and reviews."

People using the service told us the staff treated them with respect and dignity. One person told us, "the staff respect my privacy." A visiting professional told us, "they treat people here with compassion, respect and dignity."

We looked at staff files and saw that the service followed recruitment procedures and checked that new staff were suitable to work in a care home.

People using the service said they could talk with staff or the manager if they had any concerns or complaints. They also felt confident that staff members would resolve their problem. One person said, "I would complain to the manager. She would look at it."

6 December 2012

During a routine inspection

Before people received any care or treatment they were asked for their consent and the provider acted in accordance with their wishes.

We spoke with four people who were using the service. Each person told us they liked living at Aspen Court Nursing Home. People told us staff were "kind" and "caring." One person told us, "Mary [the registered manager] looks after us very well. Staff are very nice. I am happy here." We spoke with a relative of a person, who felt the staff understood her family member's personality. They also commented the home was "very nice."

People's needs were assessed and care and treatment was planned and delivered in line with their individual care plan. There was a good care planning system in place and staff working in the home were aware of each person's individual needs. This included each person's cultural and spiritual needs.

There were effective systems in place to reduce the risk and spread of infection. The premises were clean and hygienic. Staff were aware of infection control issues and they received the relevant training.

Staff told us they felt very well supported by the management team. They were offered a wide range of training and regular supervision and appraisal meetings.

People who use the service, their representatives and staff were asked for their views about their care and treatment and their views were acted on. The provider took account of complaints and comments to improve the service.

9 February 2012

During an inspection looking at part of the service

The people who spoke with us said that they felt able to talk to members of staff about their individual needs. They praised the helpful nature of staff and that staff are willing to talk and listen to them.

A relative who spoke with us said that they are always consulted about the care of their husband and staff keep them up to date about how their spouse is doing.

A visitor to the home on the day of this inspection told us that they do not have any concern about the safety or wellbeing of their relative. No residents made any specific comments about having any concerns and information that we saw from residents meetings and other documents show that the people who live here feel that they are cared for safely by staff.