Aspen Court Care Home

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 75 (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 manager demonstrated a good understanding of learning from accidents and incidents and understood their responsibilities under the duty of candour. Incident forms were completed by staff and reviewed by the manager and provider who ensured any learning was shared with the wider staff team. The provider also shared learning from incidents and events in their other services with staff to raise awareness and drive improvements.

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 had established systems in place to ensure people were safely supported to access other services when this was required. For example, we found appropriate referrals had been made when staff had identified a person had lost weight. Relatives also confirmed that people received appropriate support to access healthcare. One relative told us, “Everything [person] has needed, they have been on it very quickly. I have never had to ask. Every Tuesday, if [person] has seen the GP, I get a phone call.” And another relative told us, “The optician comes in and [person] had an eye test. A chiropodist comes in. One of the ladies does [person’s] nails and they care for [person’s] dementia.”

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 had received training in how to safeguard people from abuse and understood how to report any concerns. We found the manager and provider had robust systems in place to ensure safeguarding incidents were promptly investigated and reported, we found appropriate actions had been taken when a safeguarding incident had occurred. Some people told us they had not always felt safe, due the staffing levels in the service. However, the provider told us how they recently increased the amount of staff on shift in response to this. Relatives told us they felt their family members were safely cared for. One relative told us, “They really look after [person] really well.” And another relative told us, “[Staff] support [person] with dignity and care, all of the staff are absolutely brilliant.”

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. Relatives provided us with positive feedback on how their family members were supported. One relative told us, “[Peron] had a fall in their room. The way they handled it was great. They put all the measures in place, and they do keep me informed of risk.” Risks which affected people's daily lives, were documented and known by staff. The management team monitored and regularly assessed these risks and took appropriate actions to ensure people received care in a safe and consistent way.

The provider detected and controlled potential risks in the care environment. They made sure equipment, facilities and technology supported the delivery of safe care. We observed the environment to be clean and well maintained. We also found useful information on display to inform people, this included what activities were happening, when various meetings were taking place and information on how to raise a concern. We reviewed the health and safety within the service and found this was regularly checked and compliance certificates were in place and up to date.

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.

We received mixed opinion from people, their relatives and staff on the staffing levels in the service. The majority of people we spoke with told us they did not feel there was enough staff in the communal areas of the home. Relatives told us they felt staff were busy, however this did not impact on the care they delivered. Staff told us staffing levels in the past had not been enough. However,the provider had recently increased staffing levels so had improved. We reviewed the provider’s dependency tool which informed how many staff were required to support people and found the provider had increased their staffing levels based on the feedback they had received from people. We carried out observations throughout our visit to the service and observed staff to provide timely care and attention to people when this was needed. We also found the manager regularly monitored call bell response times to ensure people were receiving a timely response when they required assistance.

The provider assessed and managed the risk of infection. They detected and controlled the risk of infection spreading and shared concerns with appropriate agencies promptly. Relatives told us staff always wore personal protective equipment (PPE) and staff confirmed they had received infection control training. We found the manager regularly carried out infection, prevention and control audits and actions had been promptly addressed.

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. Medicines were managed safely; regular checks of the stock levels were carried out by staff. There was clear guidance for staff for safe administration of 'when required medicines' (PRN). This meant people received these medicines when they needed them. Staff had received medicine training and had regular checks of their competency. We checked the stock levels of medicines and found these corresponded with the records in place. People and their relative’s confirmed medicines were administered as prescribed. One person told us, “I have no problems, with my tablets, the nurses know what they are doing.” And a relative told us,” [Staff] are always precise on medication, they do let me know if there are any changes.”