Aspens Cornford Lane

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 good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant some aspects of the service were not always safe and there was limited assurance about safety. There was an increased risk that people could be harmed.

The provider was in breach of the legal regulation relating to safe care and treatment. This included assessing and mitigating risks and the management of medicines. Risks with regards to nutrition and constipation had not been consistently managed across the service. The provider had not always followed their own policy with regards to the management of medicines. It could not be assured people had received their medicines as prescribed.

People said they felt safe living at the service. However, the environment had not been regularly maintained and decorated. This resulted in some areas not looking inviting due to cracked plaster and damp patches. The home was clean and infection control procedures followed.

Staff had been recruited safely and trained to ensure they had the skills to meet people’s individual needs. Staff used effective strategies to support people who presented as anxious and they knew how to support people to remain calm.

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

There were variations across the service in how well people’s health needs and capacity to consent were assessed, monitored and recorded.

People’s needs were fully assessed and this included detailed information about the best ways to communicate effectively.

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.

People, relatives and external professionals said that staff were kind and caring. We observed staff supporting people with patience and understanding whilst enabling them to make choices. People were supported to stay in touch with family members and people who were important to them.

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

People were able to make choices and were offered a range of activities to take part in both in and outside their home. Bespoke communication tools were available for people to express their views and needs.

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

At our last assessment we rated this key question good. At this assessment the rating has changed to requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The provider was in breach of legal regulation in relation to the governance of the service. New quality assurance processes had been developed but they were not always effective in identifying shortfalls. This meant issues were not always acted on to make the necessary improvements. There were differences in staff culture across the service and this was acknowledged by health care professionals feedback.