Aspray House

This assessment was prompted by a review of the information we held about the service. As a result, we undertook a comprehensive inspection to review the key questions of safe, effective, caring, responsive and well-led.

The assessment team consisted of 5 inspectors. 1 Experts by Experience and 1 specialist advisor.

During the assessment, we looked at 32 quality statements.Our assessment was unannounced. We spoke with the manager, the operations manager, deputy manager, care staff, and 17 people at the service and 2 relatives. After our inspection we received feedback from 12 staff, and 6 relatives.

At the previous assessment in June 2024, improvements were required in relation to the safety of the service and the governance. At this assessment, we found improvements had been made .Risks relating to individuals' care were assessed, and staff clearly understood their duty to ensure people’s safety.

Care was delivered in the least restrictive manner, always prioritising care in the best interest of people who were supported. Recruitment processes were robust, ensuring staff were suitable for their roles, and all mandatory training had been completed. Staff members expressed that they felt appreciated and well-supported by management.

The provider demonstrated a positive commitment to ensuring the safety of people, visitors, and staff by consistently carrying out building and equipment safety checks.

Each person using the service underwent a comprehensive risk assessment, tailored to their specific needs and circumstances. These assessments aimed to identify any potential risks to people that they may face and to implement appropriate strategies to minimise the likelihood of harm.

Feedback from people who use the service told us they were happy with the service they received. Staff were often described as knowledgeable and responsive, which meant people felt supported and cared for by the staff.

Staff were recruited following appropriate checks being completed, this helped ensure that only suitable and qualified staff were employed. At the time of our inspection, we saw the service had enough staff to meet people’s needs.

People received effective protection from risks related to the spread of infection. Measures were in place to minimise exposure and transmission, ensuring a safe environment for everyone. This included regular cleaning, appropriate use of personal protective equipment (PPE), and adherence to infection control protocols.

Medicines were managed safety. Staff followed correct procedures for storage, administration, and documentation, reducing the likelihood of errors and ensuring that people received their prescribed medication as intended.

People were supported to access healthcare as needed, and their nutritional and hydration needs were proactively addressed.

Staff demonstrated a clear understanding of safeguarding procedures. They knew how to identify, and report concerns regarding the wellbeing of individuals, ensuring that any potential risks were addressed promptly and appropriately.

The physical environment was adapted to accommodate people’s mobility needs, promoting safety and accessibility throughout the building.

The provider had procedures in place to ensure that lessons were learned from any accidents, incidents, or complaints.

Staff supported people in the least restrictive way possible, always prioritising the best interests of people living at the home.

Staff sought people’s consent prior to delivering care, ensuring that individuals were actively involved in decisions about their support and treatment.

The service demonstrated a commitment to staff development by offering regular supervision and ongoing training opportunities. This support enabled staff to deliver care confidently and stay up to date with best practices.

During our visit to the service, we carried out our observations using the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). We observed that staff responded to people’s needs appropriately and treated them with respect. People appeared to have positive relationships with the staff, and people told us that they felt happy living at the home.