Aspray House

Updated 30 June 2022

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Health and Social Care Act 2008.

As part of this inspection we looked at the infection control and prevention measures in place. This was conducted so we can understand the preparedness of the service in preventing or managing an infection outbreak, and to identify good practice we can share with other services.

Inspection team

The inspection team consisted of two inspectors, a specialist nurse adviser, a medicines inspector and two Expert by Experiences. An Expert by Experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service.

Service and service type

Aspray House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing and/or personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement dependent on their registration with us. Aspray House is a care home with nursing care. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Registered Manager

This service is required to have a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. This means that they and the provider are legally responsible for how the service is run and for the quality and safety of the care provided. At the time of our inspection there was a registered manager in post.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

We reviewed information we had received about the service since the last inspection. We sought feedback from the local authority. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return (PIR). This is information providers are required to send us annually with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. We used all this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection

We spoke with 13 people who used the service and 12 relatives. We spoke with 15 staff including the registered manager, deputy manager, clinical lead, nursing staff, care staff, the maintenance person, an activity co-ordinator, kitchen staff and laundry staff. We looked at a range of management records including, supervision, quality audits and minutes of meetings. We also reviewed six staff recruitment records and eight people’s care records. After the site visit, we continued to liaise with the service. The registered manager sent us documentation we asked for and clarified any queries we had.

Updated 30 June 2022

About the service

Aspray House is a residential care home providing personal and nursing care to younger and older adults in one adapted building. Care is provided over four separate units across four floors. At the time of this inspection there were 63 people using the service including people living with dementia.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

The provider carried out building and equipment safety checks to keep people, visitors and staff safe from harm. People had risk assessments to mitigate the risk of harm they may face. Staff were recruited safely and there were enough staff on duty to meet people’s needs. People were protected from the risks associated with the spread of infection and their medicines were managed safely. Staff knew how to report safeguarding concerns. The provider had a system in place to learn lessons from accidents, incidents and complaints.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff asked for people’s consent before delivering care. People had their care needs assessed prior to admission. Staff were supported with regular supervision and training opportunities. People were supported to access healthcare and to meet their nutritional and hydration needs. The building was adapted to meet people’s mobility needs. The service was undergoing a redecoration and refurbishment programme.

Staff were observed to interact with people in a caring manner. People’s cultural and religious needs were met. People and relatives were involved in decision making about the care. Staff promoted people’s privacy and dignity and encouraged them to maintain their independence.

Care records were detailed and personalised. There were a variety of activities offered to people. People’s communication needs were met. The provider had a complaints procedure and complaints reviewed were dealt with appropriately. People’s end of life care wishes were documented.

People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management of the service. The provider had a variety of quality audits in place to identify areas for improvement. People were able to give feedback through surveys and meetings. Relatives and staff had regular meetings where they could be updated on the service development. The provider worked jointly with healthcare professionals to improve outcomes for people.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service was requires improvement (published 16 February 2021) and there was a breach of regulation. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulations.

At our last inspection we made a recommendation in relation to the deployment of staff. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and staff were deployed more efficiently.

At our last inspection we recommended the provider review their maintenance reporting procedures and risk guidelines. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and both the reporting procedures and risk guidelines were now more effective.

Why we inspected

This inspection was prompted by a review of the information we held about the service and in part due to concerns received about staffing levels, staff safety and general care people received. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks.

We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from these concerns. Please see the safe and well-led sections of this full report. The overall rating for the service has changed from requires improvement to good based on the findings of this inspection.

We looked at infection prevention and control measures under the Safe key question. We look at this in all care home inspections even if no concerns or risks have been identified. This is to provide assurance that the service can respond to COVID-19 and other infection outbreaks effectively.

You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Aspray House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.

Follow up

We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service, which will help inform when we next inspect.