We carried out a review of the data available to us about Aspen Court Care Home on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Aspen Court Care Home, you can give feedback on this service.
The service accommodates up to 40 people in a large purpose-built property. At the time of our inspection there were 30 people using the service. The service specialises in the care of older people and those living with dementia.
We found the following examples of good practice.
When people had tested positive, they followed the most recent government guidance. People isolated in their own rooms and were supported by staff. They also had an area called an isolation hub which was situated on the first floor. This consisted of several rooms where people were admitted to directly from hospital and meant that the area was isolated to reduce the risk of cross contamination.
Staff had been trained in infection prevention and control, food hygiene and COVID-19. They had also been trained in hand washing and donning and doffing personal protective equipment. Staff had been checked as to their competency in hand washing and donning and doffing PPE. One staff member had stepped up to be an Infection Prevention and Control Champion and took the lead in ensuring that standards were maintained.
There was information for staff called ‘colleague wellbeing’ which covered all aspects of notable information on the virus. This included testing, uniforms, handwashing and government guidance. It also contained information on how staff could obtain further support.
Staff who were more vulnerable were not asked to support people who were infected in an outbreak. The service had adopted green teams and red teams. This determined that the red team worked with people who had COVID-19. Vulnerable staff had been kept on the green team to protect them. Where people were more vulnerable, they had requested the advice of a medical professional.
There was a risk assessment for new and expectant mothers regarding COVID-19 and a return to work specifically for those recovering from the virus.
Areas throughout the home were assigned a Red Amber Green (RAG) rating, Red meant that it was a high risk area and people had tested positive, Green meant that people were negative and amber meant that there was a possibility that people had the virus and so staff should wear full personal protective equipment.
There was a robust infection prevention and control audit in place. If there were any areas for improvement identified, there was a clear audit trail and information on how this had been followed up.
Aspen Court accommodates 40 people providing care to people with nursing needs. At the time of our inspection there were 37 people using the service.
The last inspection took place in September 2017 when the provider for this location was Bupa Care Homes (CFH Care) Limited.
This was the first inspection of the service since the provider changed to HC One Oval Limited. This inspection took place on 18 and 19 June 2018 and was unannounced.
Aspen Court had a registered manager. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are 'registered persons'. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
People and their family members raised concerns that they had to wait, sometimes for lengthy periods of time for staff to respond when they activated the buzzer to request assistance. Some family members were concerned that there was not always a staff presence in the communal area of Aspen Court. The registered manger informed us they would monitor the response time of staff to requests for assistance and this would be discussed at the next resident and relative meeting. Alterations to staff shift patterns were set to be introduced to provide greater flexibility.
We found improvements were needed to the accuracy of some records, which assessed risk, however we found no evidence that inaccurate records had had a negative impact on people’s care. The registered manager had identified similar shortfalls and had organised additional training for staff. People’s safety was promoted by staff that had the appropriate training to monitor and support people to be safe. There were sufficient staff to keep people safe and they had undergone a robust recruitment process. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in monitoring people’s safety and well-being. Environmental risks were reduced through regular maintenance and cleaning of the service. People received their medicine and were supported by staff with the appropriate knowledge and skills in the management of medicine.
People's needs were assessed and regularly reviewed to ensure people received effective care. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. People’s independence was encouraged and the environment enabled people to move freely around the premises, including the garden. Staff received the training they needed and opportunities were available for staff to further their knowledge and develop new skills. People's dietary requirements along with their likes and dislikes with regards to food and drink were recorded. People expressed satisfaction with the meals. People were supported to access a range of health care professionals and staff worked in partnership with external agencies to ensure and promote people's wellbeing.
People spoke positively about the caring attitude and approach of staff. Staff promoted people's dignity and all interactions between staff, those using the service and family members were positive to ensure the best outcome for people. Many of the staff were dementia or dignity champions (an advocate for people who shares their knowledge with work colleagues) and were working towards gaining recognised awards. People had personalised their rooms to create a homely environment.
People were encouraged to make decisions about their care and treatment and people’s care plans reflected their opinion as to the care they wished to receive. Aspen Court had attained a local award for end of life care and information was provided in a dedicated area of the service. People with a life limiting condition were encouraged to make a care plan for their end of life care.
People were complimentary about the range of activities and social events provided at Aspen Court. People spoke of the activities they had undertaken at the service and in the wider community and spoke of further events that had been planned.
The open and inclusive approach adopted by the registered manager, management team and staff, meant people using the service and family members were confident that they could raise any concern they had. The registered manager had investigated concerns that had been made. Any information gathered following these investigations were used to improve the service provided and shared with staff.
The provider’s managerial structure meant there was strong, clear and visible leadership. There were robust systems to measure the quality of the service. People using the service, their family members and staff had a number of ways in which they could comment upon and influence the service provided.
Information we received from external stakeholders, which included health care professionals was positive. They spoke of the collaborative approach adopted by registered manager and all staff in seeking the best outcomes for people using the service by working in partnership, which included involvement in a pilot project initiated by the local NHS Clinical Commissioning Group.