Aspect House

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 requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to 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.

Incidents were recorded in people’s care records. Where people being distressed had led to incidents, the registered manager explained they used the recorded information to track similar incidents to try to establish a pattern and identify potential triggers. Necessary changes were then made to care plans and risk assessments. Information was shared at team meetings and written handovers at each shift change. Staff recorded their acknowledgement of any changes on the digital system.

Staff understood how to report safety events. One staff member told us about a leak in a person’s bedroom. They explained they immediately notified management and made the area safe.

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.

People had a ‘care passport’ which they took with them if they required medical treatment outside of the home, which included details about their care needs.

Staff were kept informed of any changes to people's health or support needs because they had a handover at the start of each shift.

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 understood their responsibility to keep people safe. Staff had received safeguarding training, knew the signs of abuse to look out for and what to do if they had any concerns. One staff member told us, “I would report it to the manager and write it up,” and “I know how to whistle blow.”

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that appropriate legal authorisations had been sought in relation to any restrictions imposed on people. The registered manager understood their responsibility to ensure that any restriction on a resident's liberty is necessary, proportionate, and lawfully authorised.

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.

Risks associated with people’s care had been identified and assessed. Risk assessments informed staff of the action they needed to take to reduce risks. Systems were in place to ensure risks people might face were monitored and routinely reviewed. The deputy manager told us, “The system notifies us when reviews are due, however they are reviewed all the time as there are so many changes.”

Managers and staff demonstrated a clear understanding of the risks individuals might encounter, along with the measures required to reduce or manage them safely. The registered manager explained that they promoted positive risk-taking, enabling people to take part in activities of their choice while supporting them to minimise any associated risks.

The provider did not always detect and control potential risks in the care environment. They did not always make sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care.

The environment was regularly checked to identify any safety concerns. However, the bathroom water temperature was found to exceed the recommended safe limit, placing people at risk of scalding, despite recorded checks indicating lower readings. Additionally, the thermometer in use was not digital and had an upper limit, preventing it from measuring higher temperatures accurately. As a result, staff were unable to obtain a reliable reading of the water temperature. The registered manager acted promptly to address this concern. A warning sign was placed to alert individuals to the temperature, and the issue was resolved on the same day. Digital thermometers were ordered to ensure accurate testing of water temperatures going forward.

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.

Staff had been recruited safely in line with the providers recruitment processes. Checks had been completed prior to staff starting work at the home to ensure their suitability. Records confirmed staff had completed an induction, training and had regular supervisions.

Staff had completed The Oliver McGowan Mandatory Training, which provides essential knowledge on supporting people with a learning disability and autistic people, including communication, reasonable adjustments, and recognising individual needs. This is particularly valuable as it helps ensure staff deliver safe, person-centred care that reduces health inequalities and improves outcomes for people with a learning disability.

Throughout our inspection we saw staff were available to respond to people’s needs. Staff had no concerns about staffing levels. One staff member told us, “We always have enough staff here. There's never been a shift that's not covered.”

One relative told us, “"The staff are well trained, they are brilliant."

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 home appeared clean and tidy and was free from odour. Systems were in place to maintain good infection control practices and staff had completed infection prevention and control training. Signs around the home reminded staff and residents to wash their hands. PPE was readily available. Residents were supported to maintain a clean environment.

The provider did not always make sure that medicines and treatments were safe and met people’s needs, capacities and preferences.

A medication stock check identified a discrepancy during our visit. Therefore, we could not be completely assured people had consistently received their medicines as prescribed. The registered manager took action to identify the cause of the error and steps were taken to reduce the risk of recurrence.

People received their medicines from staff who had completed training in the safe handling and administration of medicines. Staff were subject to regular competency checks to ensure they continued to manage medicines safely.

Medicine records showed that each person had an individual medication record in place. The management team carried out regular medicine audits, and policies and procedures were available to guide staff on the safe management of medicines.