Aspire Care Services Ltd

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 inspection for this 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.

The service had systems where people could raise concerns. Staff told us people had their direct contact numbers and could call them with concerns at any time.

Staff told us they were confident if they raised safety incidents with the management team, these would be suitably investigated. We reviewed, minutes of staff meetings which supported that discussions around accidents, incidents, preventative measures and improving the service was discussed regularly.

The service maintained an accident and incident log. This detailed information about circumstances leading up to incidents, how they were managed, and the actions taken to resolve them. The support provided by staff and the outcomes for people following incidents was also documented. This information helped to staff take preventative action and reduce the risk of similar incidents occurring in the future.

Staff maintained detailed daily records for people, which documented their moods, meals consumed, activities and wellbeing. This ensured staff were able to monitor and review people’s experiences, behaviours and changing needs timely by learning through continuous observations.

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.

The service ensured people, relatives, and those important to them were involved in the creation of their care plans and risk assessments. Enough information was gathered to ensure people would not need to repeat their personal or medical history if they were transitioning between services. The service worked well with healthcare professionals to ensure people received support from external partners as required.

Care plans and risk assessments had enough information to ensure a smooth transition if people had needed to move between services. The service worked well with healthcare professionals to ensure people received support from external partners as required.

At the time of the assessment, people were being supported by external partners to manage their healthcare needs, however, no people were transitioning between services.

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.

The provider demonstrated an adequate understanding of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Staff had received training in the mental capacity act and knew how to support people accordingly under this act. Staff were able to explain the basic principles of the MCA. One staff member told us, “The Mental Capacity Act helps protect people who may struggle to make certain decisions. It means we should always help and support people to make their own choices where possible if they can’t management will keep best interest meetings.”

Staff had received training in the MCA and understood how to support people in relation to this.

The service had a safeguarding adult’s policy in place, which supported staff to manage safeguarding issues as required. Staff told us they would record and report all concerns raised to the manager as required. One staff member said, “We treat everyone with respect and kindness. We listen to concerns, report any abuse or bullying, and make sure people are safe and supported.” At the time of the inspection, there had been no recent safeguarding concerns reported for people using the service.

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.

Care plans contained enough information to inform staff how to manage risks and keep people safe from avoidable harm. Care plans were created and reviewed with people and their relatives on a regular basis. This ensured staff were well informed on how to protect people from the risk of avoidable harm.

People were supported to review and sign their tenancy agreements. This ensured they had a good oversight into their living arrangement and ensured they were involved in every part of their care.

The manager of the service held regular individual key working sessions with people. In these sessions people could discuss all aspects of their care, including the review and management of their care plans and associated risks.

People's behaviour support plans contained personalised guidance on how risks associated with emotional distress and changes in mood should be managed. Records included daily observations of people's mood and emotional wellbeing, as well as details of any incidents or behaviours that may have required additional support. This ensured staff would recognise changes in people's emotional state, respond appropriately, and work with people to reduce the risk of incidents occurring. Staff used this information to provide consistent, person-centred support that helped people manage risks while maintaining their independence and wellbeing.

The provider did not always ensure potential risks in the care environment were assessed and reviewed to prevent the risk of avoidable harm, and ensure all measures were taken to ensure the environment was safe.

While the management team had conducted a fire risk assessment, a professional fire risk assessment by the landlord had not been completed. This meant there were no checks on fire doors or partitioning. External advice on evacuation for people had not been assessed by those qualified to make the assessment. While we saw no evidence to support people were at teh risk of avoidable harm, we raised this concern with the registered manager, who told us that an assessment would be arranged.

While we saw no evidence to support people were at the risk of avoidable harm, we raised this concern with the registered manager who told us that an assessment would be arranged.

There was effective signage for fire exits in place to guide people and visitors out of the building in the event of an emergency. We saw records to support the service completed fire drills on a regular basis. People were compliant with participating in fire drills and would leave the service supported by staff without concern.

People had personal emergency evacuation plans (PEEPs) in place, to inform staff how to safely evacuate people from the building.

Safety certificates for gas, electrical wiring were up to date. Windows had appropriate restrictors in place. Health and safety checks for hot water temperature records were up to date and showed no issues.

Staff had received training in Food Hygiene, Fire Safety, Moving and Handling, First Aid and Basic Life Support. This training would aid staff to ensure people’s environment was safe for care to be delivered in.

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.

While there were pre-employment checks in place, staff had not provided full employment histories as part of the recruitment process. This meant recruitment was not fully compliant in line with current guidance and best practice. This put people at risk of being supported by staff who had not been fully assessed to ensure they were safe to provide care and support. We discussed this with the registered manager who gathered the staff’s employment histories during the assessment.

However, the recruitment process in place did take measures to ensure recruitment was safe. Application forms, references and photographic identification of staff was submitted prior to staff supporting people with care.

Recruitment records showed staff had induction sessions at the beginning of their employment, and regular supervision sessions. Appropriate employment checks such as, right to work in the UK, Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks and suitable references had all been obtained.

A relative told us they thought the staff were well trained and had the ability to support people with their care and support needs.

Staff had worked with people since they began to receive support at the service, and they knew people well. The manager told us there was low turnover of staff, and this helped to keep stability, and consistency at the service. There were sufficient numbers of staff to support people with their care needs at the service.

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.

The service appeared very bright and clean. The floors were in good repair throughout. Bathrooms and toilets were clean throughout and in good repair.

Staff had received training in infection, prevention and control. While at the service, we witnessed staff wearing PPE appropriately, for example, when supporting with medicines, or working in the kitchen.

Staff supported people to play an active role in keeping the service clean and hygienic. People were encouraged to take part in cleaning tasks weekly. This supported people to develop and maintain good infection prevention and control skills, developing confidence towards independent living.

The service had an infection, prevention and control policy in place which guided staff on steps to take to reduce the risk of spreading infection. Staff had also received training in infection control.

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 a good knowledge of people’s medicines support needs. People were supported to manage their medication in blister packs to help reduce the risk of missed medication and medicines errors. People were able to exercise their right to refuse medication if they wished.

Refused medicines would be noted, and if required, the GP would be contacted for additional advice.

We observed staff supporting people to take their medicines in a person-centred way. People were given the opportunity to take their medicines in private and at a time that suited their individual preferences and routines. Staff followed prescribed guidance to ensure medicines were administered safely and in line with people's assessed needs.

We saw records to support all staff had received training in medication delivery. They had regular competency and compliance checks. Staff attended refresher courses in medicines administration annually.