Aspens Cornford Lane

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

People were able to make choices and were offered a range of activities to take part in both in and outside their home. Bespoke communication tools were available for people to express their views and needs.

This service scored 71 (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 people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

We observed staff working in a person-centred way. They offered people options about what they wanted to do and what they wanted to eat or drink. For example, when a person did not want to eat what was on the lunch menu they were supported to make a sandwich of their choice.

One person introduced themselves and told us, “This is my house.” When we asked the person if they liked living at their house they responded, “Yes”. Another person told us, “No place is perfect. I am well looked after. It is a first class service most of the time.”

One of the houses was a specialist service for people living with dementia. Staff who supported these people had undertaken additional training to ensure they had the skills and knowledge to care for people with these dual needs. This had included an in depth three week course in dementia, frailty and advance care planning (ACP). ACP isthe process of making decisions about what kind of care would like to have in the future. A staff member at this house had lead responsibility for ensuring activities met people’s needs. They described how they used different activities depending on the individual person.

People had activity schedules and their own personalised activity boards which could be used for people who understood pictures and symbols. People had access to the on-site day centre which offered a range of activities including cooking, art and music. There was also a sensory room available. Relatives told us people were involved in things that they enjoyed and also went on regular holidays. People told us they enjoyed going to the day centre, taking part in in-house activities. Comments included, “The music man comes to the house. I like hitting the drum”; and “I go swimming to Larkfield. I like the pool there. I go where the soft waves are. I go by car. I go to St Peter’s church. I went there yesterday”.

We observed people going out to the day centre and the local shops. Some people undertook house activities such as listening to music, colouring and enjoying the sunshine. One staff member told us how the sensory room benefitted people living with dementia. “[Person] has a sensory session every week. [They] really love that as [their] face lights up and [they] laugh.”

A health care professional told us, “I've witnessed staff personalising activities and events for all needs. The staff promptly and efficientlyadapt to changing demands or challenges.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People who lived at the service had a wide range of needs which were covered in the staff training programme. This meant that staff were given the knowledge they needed to support people with diverse health and care needs.

To ensure continuity of care, there were a mixture of permanent, agency and bank staff working throughout the service. This helped to ensure there were always staff available who knew people well.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

The provider was aware of their responsibilities to ensure people with a disability, or sensory loss received information in a way they could understand it and support with their communication.

People’s communication needs had been assessed and were detailed in their care and support records. Aspects of people’s care was provided in a way people could understand. The structure of some people’s meetings were set out in pictures to help them understand what was being discussed. Other people were given easy read and pictorial information about how to keep safe or about healthy eating and food choices.

Relatives told us that staff knew how to communicate with people in a way they could understand. One relative told us, “The staff are extremely diligent in explaining things where others might think my loved one doesn’t understand.”

Bespoke communication had been developed for people. One person’s eating and drinking guidance from the speech and language therapist was in a pictorial format to help them understand. Another person had been supported using an emotional widget board to hep them express how they were feeling due to a bereavement. Social stories had also been used to help prepare people for specific events such as attending a medical appointment. Social stories use pictures and simple language to help explain what is expected of a person in a particular social situation and why those expectations are important.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

There were variations in the service in how people were supported to give feedback about their care and support. Some people had regular meetings where a review was undertaken of what was working well for them and anything they wanted to change. One person told us, “My keyworker[staff] is better than the rest of them. I discuss personal things with them, private stuff. [They are] a problem solver”. There were also house meetings where people were encouraged to share any concerns or complaints. However, some people had less meetings with staff and the scope of discussions only covered meal planning. There were no discussions with people or their representatives to review their care, nor encouragement to share their concerns. One person told us, “The staff are in between, sometimes they don’t really listen to me, as if they can’t be bothered.”

Feedback from relatives was mixed about whether they had been involved in people’s care. Some people said they had been involved in developing their family members care plans and were always invited to care reviews. However, a relative told us their family member had moved to another of the houses without them being consulted so it could be assessed it was in their best interests. For another relative, action to make a necessary improvement had only come about once they had made a formal complaint. Relatives were kept up to date with the provider by newsletters and had recently been invited to a coffee morning.

The service had a complaints policy which had been followed when complaints had been logged. Complaints were investigated by a manager from a different house from which the complaint had been raised. Information about how to make a complaint was in easy read format at some of the houses. There was also guidance about how to make a complaint on the company’s website. Staff described situations in which verbal complaints from people had been addressed immediately.

A health professional told us, “When pointing out anything I have identified with a person, the staff are responsive and listen to any queries or concerns I have.”

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

The provider set out clear admissions criteria which were that a person had a learning disability and or autism and were aged over 18 years. There were no barriers to anyone meeting these criteria being referred or admitted to the service. People’s needs were assessed before moving into the service and they would only be turned down for a place if the provider thought staff did not have the appropriate skills to provide safe care to an individual.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Leaders and staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage people using the service and took action when needed. Staff supported people to go out in the community, take part in social activities and to make referrals to health services.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Discussions had taken place with people and their family members about the type of support they would like when they became unwell or at the end of their lives. Some staff had had additional training in how to undertake this process. This included if people wanted to spend their last days at home, hospital or with family members. Staff gave examples of how people had been supported to achieve these wishes.

Some people lived at the service had a short life expectancy due to illness. Staff spoke emotionally about how they had supported people with their medical treatments. Staff understood the importance of making sure people at the end of their lives continued to live as full a life as possible. People were actively supported to meet with friends, go on day trips and plan for holidays.