Aston Home Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first inspection for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement.

This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

This service scored 58 (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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always ensure enough specific information was obtained and recorded within their care plan.

People’s care plans did not always contain enough specific information about people’s identified conditions. We found, for example, 1 person’s care record detailed they previously had a stroke, however, there was no information to guide or inform staff of how to support the person with this need. We informed the provider, who confirmed they would review people’s care records and include required information for staff to follow for people’s identified needs.

The local authority raised concerns for 1 person the provider was supporting with a specific condition, where staff were not meeting this need effectively or following the required instruction to maintain this condition. During our assessment the provider stopped providing support to this person, which meant this concern was no longer a risk for this person.

The provider failed to adequately assess people’s needs, as they did not recognise, they were not able to support people with a learning disability and or autistic people, due to a condition on their registration preventing this.

People and their relatives we spoke with confirmed staff knew them well, and they felt their needs were regularly assessed and reviewed. One relative told us about their loved one’s condition and how staff specifically meet their communication needs, “If [Person’s name] ask staff to do something different the staff do it, 5 days a week it is the same staff member. Staff can communicate with [Person’s name], the 2 regular carers are amazing with my relative.”

Staff we spoke with confirmed they knew people well and knew how to support them in line with their needs. Despite our findings, staff felt people’s care records included required information, and they gained further information from people where needed.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

People’s specific needs were not always clearly recorded within their care plans, and therefore staff did not always have accurate and up to date information to meet people’s needs.

Despite our findings, people and relatives, we spoke with confirmed staff supported them in line with what was important to them and how they wanted care to be delivered, and staff told us, they monitored people’s health, including people’s skin care and any change or deterioration to their needs.

Whilst we found areas where there was not enough specific information to support staff, we did review some people’s care records which showed where monitoring was required, or professional input was sought. For these people, any recommendations or advice was clearly recorded for staff to follow.

People’s records included up to date nutrition and hydration assessments, oral care tasks and if the person had any known allergies.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people.

Staff members we spoke with felt they worked well as team and with other services to ensure people’s needs were met.

People and their relatives confirmed staff visiting were mostly consistent and shared information to meet people’s needs. One person told us, “The staff work well, together, with me and with my relative to support me. They make referrals if needed, they ask me if I am ok with my medication if I need a new prescription or anything.”

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

People and relatives, we spoke with confirmed staff supported them with their independence and to manage their health and wellbeing.

Staff supported people with making telephone calls to their friends and relatives and encouraged people to plan to meet up with people as they wished to support their wellbeing and promote their independence.

People’s care records showed where people were referred to health care professionals when needed to support their wellbeing and help them live healthy lives.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it.

Whilst we found staff monitored people’s needs, and raised concerns as and when required, where people had a specific condition, staff did not always have enough training or information to ensure effective monitoring was in place. This placed people at risk of harm.

Another professional informed us, for 1 person’s identified condition, staff were repeatedly shown by the relative how to support the person with this need. Further specialist training from a health care professional was required to ensure staff could effectively monitor this person’s need. We also found this person’s care records did not contain enough specific information to inform staff how to safely support them.

People and relatives, we spoke with confirmed staff monitored their care and needs and raised any concerns as they identified them.

Whilst we found some care plans required further information, the provider reviewed people’s care records and updated care plans with a change in need or care and treatment.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA), and whether any conditions or authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty had the appropriate legal authority and were being met.

We found although assessments of people’s mental capacity had been completed, the information around the decision was not always appropriate and least restrictive. For example, 1 person’s mental capacity assessment (MCA) stated they did not have capacity to make decisions around their medicines but stated ‘my [relative] will manage my medication’. The person’s care plan did not contain a record of a best interest around this decision or any record of the lasting power of attorney or court of protection documents. We raised this with the provider who confirmed they would review this.

People’s records included information about their consent to care and treatment.

People and relatives, we spoke with, overall, confirmed staff gained their consent prior to delivering any care or treatment. One person told us, “They [Staff] ask if I want any extra help, they ask for my consent, they know me and what my needs are.”