Aspens Supported Living & Outreach (Kent)

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to the governance at the service.

This service scored 54 (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 shared vision, strategy and culture and was working towards ensuring this was consistently disseminated throughout the service.

Staff culture had been identified as an area that needed improvement in the last staff survey in 2024. Most staff told us that there had been positive changes in staff culture and communication, but for some staff this remained an area that needed further changes. Comments included, “Communication in the team has improved dramatically”; and “I wasn’t listened to until (staff member) started and I met with them and we discussed it. This has meant the changes are now happening”.

The provider had structures in place to acknowledge staff’s achievements and aid communication between staff in the individual houses. Staff were nominated for employee of the month and given a certificate to acknowledge their achievements. Staff were given awards and points for good practice and acknowledging hard work. For example, achieving qualifications and supporting people to do new things. Staff were kept up to date with what was going on with the company via weekly newsletters and charity wide calls. Each staff team communicated in a dedicated teams chat so they were made aware of important changes and information with regards to people’s care. Staff had access to a range of well-being support including counselling, financial support and retail discounts.

Staff told us they felt valued working for the provider. One staff member told us, “I have been nominated for several awards. Aspens have wellbeing support in place. I have never needed it but I would know where to go if I did. The managers offer help and are very supportive” and, “I notice a lot when we are supporting people to go out the team gets lots of praise from other organisations about how we work with people. Our manager feeds this back to us".

There was inconsistent practice in how leaders embodied the culture and values of their workforce and organisation. Leaders did not always have the skills, knowledge and experience to lead effectively.

The service had five managers who covered specific geographical areas where people’s homes were located. They were supported by deputy managers and senior staff. Some of the managers were also responsible for some of the providers other services, so divided their time between them.

Managers were knowledgeable about the people they supported. They told us they kept up to date with best practice by completing training, reviewing information from CQC and attending meetings held by the provider and health and social care organisations. However, managers did not have a full understanding of the CQC’s role in regulating the service. CQC only has responsibility to assess the care and treatment of people who receive the regulated activity of personal care. Some people supported by the provider only required help with non regulated activities such as meal planning, social activities or budgeting. Managers did not have a clear understanding of what constituted personal care and we were given differing accounts of how many people came under the CQC remit throughout the inspection visit.

Feedback from relatives and health and social care professionals was mixed about how well the service was managed. Comments from relatives included, “Yes, I think they manage it best as they can”; and, “The managers also listen to me. One is very proactive and the other is laid back, so it works well”. Comments from health and social care professionals included, “I do have some concerns around poor communication from the provider and limited or delayed responses to queries”; and “I have found liaison with the services home manager quite delayed at times e.g. taking several working days/weeks to respond to my emails. Needing to send follow up emails to get a response”.

There was inconsistency in staff confidence in speaking up and that their voice would be heard.

Staff were given structured opportunities to speak up, such as in staff meetings and supervision. Managers told us staff were also able to approach them at any time if they had any concerns. Most staff told us this was the case and gave examples of how managers had listened and acted on their views, stating that their voice was heard. However, this view was not consistent about the whole of the management team.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

The provider had policies in place to guide staff to make sure equality and diversity were considered in all aspects of their work. This included ensuring recruitment processes did not disadvantage different groups of people. Staff had received training in equality and diversity and knew how to put this into practice. Staff had been supported with reasonable adjustments. Reasonable adjustments arechanges made by an organisation to support a person with a disability, to ensure they are not at a disadvantage compared to non-disabled people.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes.

The provider did not have full oversight of the service. They were not aware staff were carrying out a medical procedure for which specialised training was needed. Nor that some people were paying for their own personal protective equipment, when this was the responsibility of the provider. There were not accurate records of how many people using the service received the regulated activity of personal care. When a safeguarding incident had occurred, the provider had not ensured effective systems were in place to assure CQC were notified, as it is required to do for significant events that affect the service.

The provider had a quality compliance team which consisted of four staff who covered the whole of the provider’s regulated, non regulated and retail services. There was a programme of audits to monitor the service and identify areas for improvements. This included staff, manager, peer, external reviews by the quality team and family and friends surveys and lived experience observations. Each group of people’s homes had an action plan setting out the steps that needed to be taken to ensure compliance. There were variations in the timeliness of these necessary actions being completed. For some action plans there was a steady progress, but for others there were significant delays. This included necessary health and safety checks, details with regards to people’s tenancy agreements, medicines and records.

The programme of audits was not fully effective as it had failed to identify shortfalls we found in the service with regards to assessing risks, staff training and medicines management. The management were open to feedback and motivated to make changes to improve the service. During the assessment a member of the quality team arranged to visit one shared home to support with the completion of some of their long-term standing actions.

The provider understood their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people. They shared information and learning with partners and collaborated for improvement.

People were supported to play an active role within their local community. People used the local shops and cafes and facilities close to where they lived. The provider knew to contact independent advocates when people did not have family or friends who could help them to make choices and decisions.

The provider had systems and processes in place to collaborate and work in partnership with health partners, social services and the local authority contracting teams. This enabled them to share information and learning with partners and collaborate for improvement. A health care partner told us there had been improvements in joint working. “Previously there had been a lack of coordination. There have since been staff changes and things are sorted”.

The provider was working to ensure they were focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation and local system.

Although the provider had sought feedback from relatives and staff about things that were working well and where improvements were needed, this been had undertaken across all services in Kent and Sussex. The provider could not drill down to the staff teams that supported specific people to identify where highlighted issues were most prevalent. The provider had recognised this shortfall and told us that the next surveys would ask staff and relatives which service they were feeding back about.

The management team told us they were focused on creative ways of supporting people. They gave examples of people who had become less anxious and taken up new activities such as swimming. A relative informed us how their family member went on holiday with staff support, when they had not been able to do so previously. People were involved in community events and fundraising activities. Some people had taken part in a BBQ to celebrate autism awareness week and others joined in sports days.