CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Aspen House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed and reviewed, medicines were managed safely and there were enough staff to care for people safely. Infection prevention and control arrangements were also found to be satisfactory.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed, staff received training and people were supported with food, drinks and health appointments. Inspectors also found that consent and best-interest processes were understood and used.
- Caring?
- Good
- Staff had positive relationships with people and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect. People were supported to make choices and remain as independent as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans and risk assessments reflected people's needs and preferences. Staff responded to changes, supported activities and helped people maintain important relationships.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The manager and deputy had good oversight through audits and quality checks. People, relatives and staff described an open, positive culture where their views were listened to.
What inspectors found, August 2022
Aspen House Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some staffing pressure and refurbishment still to address.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 23 May 2022. Inspectors spoke with five people, four relatives and six staff. They observed care and checked care plans, risk assessments, medicine records and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People and relatives described the home as homely, safe and secure. Staff were found to know people well and provide kind, personalised support.
The home had enough staff on the day and records showed staffing levels were consistently maintained, although there were recent staffing pressures and vacant posts. Some parts of the building needed refurbishment, and the activities co-ordinator post was vacant. The overall rating had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection.
Safe care
Inspectors found that risks were identified, monitored and acted on. Staff understood how to recognise and report abuse, and medicines were administered safely.
“Risks to people were identified, assessed and monitored to support their safety.” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff knew people well and supported them in a gentle, respectful way. Inspectors saw staff protecting privacy and encouraging independence.
“We observed positive and caring relationships, and this was evident in how staff communicated with people.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans had improved since the previous inspection and reflected people's diverse needs, communication methods and preferences.
“At this inspection improvements had been made and care plans and risk assessments reflected people's diverse needs and preferences.” from the report
Food and health support
People enjoyed the food and could have choices. Staff supported people to maintain their weight and helped them access GPs, dentists, opticians and other professionals.
“People were being supported with food and drinks and had a healthy and varied diet.” from the report
Open management
Quality checks were in place and staff, people and relatives said the management listened to their views.
“Systems for monitoring standard of care were embedded within practice and this meant the registered manager and the deputy manager had good oversight and identified where improvements were needed.” from the report
Staffing pressure
minorStaff described recent pressure, and recruitment to vacant posts was still under way. Records showed staffing levels were maintained and inspectors found there were enough staff at the time.
“Staff described recent staffing pressures. The registered manager was seen to be providing hands on support to help the care staff on the day of the inspection.” from the report
Building refurbishment
minorSome parts of the building needed updating. The manager said plans were in place and people would be consulted about colour schemes.
“The building was in need of some refurbishment in places, but people said they considered it to be "cosy" and "comfortable".” from the report
Activities vacancy
minorThe activities co-ordinator post was vacant. The manager had identified the possible effect on people and had a plan to help prevent isolation.
“A plan was in place to ensure that people did not become isolated and continued to have activities to occupy them.” from the report
- 01Have all vacant staff posts been filled, and how are staffing levels adjusted when people's needs change?
- 02What activities are now available while the activities co-ordinator post is vacant?
- 03What refurbishment has been completed since the inspection, and what work is still planned?
- 04How often are care plans and risk assessments reviewed when a person's needs or preferences change?
- 05How are people and their families involved in choosing changes to the home and its activities?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control under Safe. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 August 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, November 2020
Aspen House Care Home is rated Requires Improvement, although inspectors found safe care and better management, with some cleaning records still needing attention.
This was an announced, focused inspection on 30 September 2020. Inspectors checked Safe and Well-led, reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records and management systems, spoke with people, staff and relatives, and considered infection control during the COVID-19 pandemic.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Good for Well-led. Inspectors found that risks, medicines, staffing, falls monitoring and safeguarding had improved. They also found that staff understood people's needs and that the home was clean, with infection control procedures in place.
The overall rating stayed at Requires Improvement because ratings for the other three areas were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement four times in a row and had breached Regulations 12 and 17, but inspectors found it was no longer in breach at this inspection.
Improved risk management
Care plans and risk assessments had been updated, including for falls, mobility and skin care. Staff understood how to reduce identified risks.
“the provider had made sufficient improvements to ensure that risks were properly managed, and that staff had information to mitigate those risks.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
PRN medicines information had been corrected, medicines records were completed properly and audits had become more effective.
“At this inspection, PRN medicines had been reviewed for each client and staff had the correct information to administer these safely.” from the report
Enough suitable staff
Inspectors observed people being supported promptly. Recruitment checks included references and criminal record checks.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Better oversight
The manager had introduced more consistent quality checks and worked with an external adviser and the local authority quality team.
“Improved oversight, and continuous improvement through partnership working, had led to better care and outcomes for people.” from the report
Cleaning records
minorCare staff were doing the cleaning because the designated cleaner could not work during the pandemic. Inspectors advised that cleaning should be documented fully for every area, and alternative formal arrangements were being sought.
“we advised that staff ensure that this was being fully documented for all areas of the home.” from the report
Overall rating remains Requires Improvement
needs fixingThe focused inspection only reassessed Safe and Well-led. The other three key questions were not looked at, so the overall rating remained Requires Improvement.
“This report only covers our findings in relation to the Key Questions Safe and Well-Led which contain those requirements.” from the report
- 01When will Caring, Effective and Responsive be fully reassessed, and what were the previous ratings for these areas?
- 02Have cleaning records for every area of the home been completed consistently since the inspection?
- 03What external quality support and monthly monitoring are still in place?
- 04How are falls, medicine changes and other incidents reviewed now?
- 05How can relatives keep in contact with residents when visiting restrictions are in place?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; the ratings for Caring, Effective and Responsive were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 November 2020 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Aspen House Care Home
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2022Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2020Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 January 2011.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Brighton and Hove
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £1,020 to £1,280 a week. 37 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Lottie showed incredible patience and empathy, adapting her routine to fit in with Mum's moods. Most importantly, Lottie's cheerful manner helped Mum to get some enjoyment out of life.”
“He was infinitely patient with them and got on very well with us to the extent that we now regard him as a personal friend.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.