Archived: Aspire Support

Below is a summary of what we found. The summary describes what people using the service, the staff and health and social care professionals told us and the records we looked at.

We spoke to four people who used the service and three staff who provided care. Three professionals gave us their views by email.

Is the service safe?

We saw that support plans were in place that made sure staff had information to keep people safe. Where a risk had been identified records detailed how to minimise or manage the risk.

The management team understood the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005, its main Codes of Practice and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (as they related to domiciliary care) and put them into practice to protect people.

Is the service effective?

People told us that they were happy with the way they were supported. One person said, 'They support me really well and they are all very nice people' and 'They respect my wishes'.

We saw examples of people benefiting from the support provided. Staff we spoke with understood people's care needs and the support they were to provide.

We found some examples of an inconsistent approach in how people were supported. For example, guidance about when one person should be given an extra dose of laxative had not always been followed. These may mean that people were not always benefitting from the medicines prescribed for them. The operations manager told us that urgent team meetings would be arranged to help improve consistency.

Is the service caring?

We asked people if their staff were kind and helpful and they told us they were. One person said, 'Definitely'. Another person told us, 'They are really good and very helpful'.

We found that people's needs were assessed and their support plans had been developed with their involvement. The plans were personalised and took account of people's wishes and preferences.

Staff talked about how they supported people in a caring and compassionate way. Daily records showed that staff took people's health concerns seriously and acted when someone felt unwell.

Is the service responsive?

People told us that they would feel confident talking to the staff if they were unhappy with anything. They said they were asked for their views about their support and were listened to.

A health professional wrote and told us, 'I have found the staff team to be very responsive and committed to supporting X (their client) despite the fact it has been very difficult and stressful at times.

A safeguarding alert had been raised about one aspect of one person's care. The management team had acted quickly and worked with health professionals to protect the person and ensured correct and safe arrangements were in place.

Is the service well led?

We found that the provider had taken action to address the shortfalls identified during the inspection in January 2014. The new management team had been in post for less than two months. The provider's action plan was still being implemented but good progress had already been made.

The people we spoke to felt they could raise any concerns with senior staff. One person said, 'The manager is very approachable' and 'My team leader is lovely'.

Health and social care professionals told us they had confidence in the senior managers to address any current weaknesses. Staff told us that they felt well supported under the leadership of the new management team. One carer said, 'I was very impressed with the new ideas'.

We received mainly positive feedback from people using the service. People told us that they liked the staff who listened to them and respected their decisions. People and their representatives told us the staff provided the support that was needed. The provider's systems to assess, plan and review people's support needs were not always followed.

Recruitment procedures were effective and new staff told us their induction was good.

Staff said they felt supported but some had not had supervision sessions or attended staff meetings in recent months. There were gaps in training. This included specific training staff needed to do in order to better understand the health conditions of the people they were supporting. The provider was addressing these.

There were systems in place to monitor the quality of the service people received but there was scope to improve these.

People told us they felt safe when their support staff were in their home and that they trusted them. Safeguarding concerns were taken seriously when they arose and action was taken promptly to protect people. One person's changing health needs had not been responded to properly. This was due to a communication breakdown between care staff and office based staff. Once the manager was aware they took action quickly to protect the person. They told us lessons would be learnt and training improved.

People told us that staff were friendly, courteous and spoke to them in a respectful way. The staff were positive about the people they supported and were aware of their practical and emotional support needs. They told us they were well trained and supported by senior staff who knew people's needs well so could advise when issues arose.