CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Aspen House Limited
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Safeguarding referrals were not always made, medicines were not always managed safely, and some risk assessments were out of date. Staffing levels were sufficient, and infection control practices were being followed.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- The Mental Capacity Act was not always applied to care decisions, and staff did not always put their training into practice. People were supported with food, drink and healthcare, including help from other health professionals.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. The report says ratings for questions not inspected were carried over from the last inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. The report says ratings for questions not inspected were carried over from the last inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Quality checks did not identify important problems, and statutory notifications and the home's own policies were not always followed. People and staff said managers were available and listened to them.
What inspectors found, January 2024
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks with safeguarding, medicines, consent and management systems.
The inspection was unannounced. One inspector and an expert by experience visited on 14 November 2023. They spoke with 7 people and 6 staff, and checked care plans, medicine records, recruitment files, training records, audits and policies.
The home had enough staff, and people were supported with food, drink, healthcare and infection control. People said staff were helpful and they could choose meals, activities and outings.
However, safeguarding referrals were missed for five people who records showed had been put at risk of harm. Medicines were not always given or recorded safely. Some risks were not kept up to date, and the Mental Capacity Act was not always followed when making decisions for people.
The overall rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement. The home must improve its systems for safeguarding, medicines, consent and checking the quality of care. CQC will request an action plan and continue to monitor progress.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to provide care and support in a timely way.
“We observed staff were available throughout the day to provide people with timely care and support.” from the report
Food and drink
People could choose what to eat, with alternatives available. Their weights and fluid intake were monitored.
“People were supported to eat and drink enough to maintain a balanced diet.” from the report
Healthcare support
The home worked with health professionals and included their advice in people's care plans.
“The provider ensured the service worked effectively within and across organisations to deliver effective care, support and treatment.” from the report
Open culture
People said they felt able to speak with staff and managers. People and staff were involved in meetings and decisions about the home.
“There was a positive and open culture at the service.” from the report
Safeguarding referrals
seriousThe home did not always refer incidents to the local authority safeguarding team. Inspectors made referrals for five people during the inspection.
“During our inspection we made safeguarding referrals to the local authority for 5 people where records showed they had been placed at risk of harm and no safeguarding referrals had been made by the provider.” from the report
Medicines safety
seriousSome medicines were given too close together, some as-needed medicines were not fully recorded, and some creams were not applied as prescribed.
“People were not always supported to receive their medicines safely.” from the report
Consent and restrictions
seriousMental capacity assessments and best-interests decisions were not always completed. One person's drink was restricted without the required legal decision-making records.
“The principles of the MCA were not always upheld and applied to people's care.” from the report
Weak quality checks
needs fixingAudits did not identify problems with safeguarding, medicines and consent. Some required statutory notifications and recruitment checks were also missed.
“Systems and processes designed to assess, monitor and improve services and reduce risks were not always operated effectively.” from the report
Out-of-date risk records
needs fixingSome risk assessments did not reflect people's current risks, including a risk linked to smoking while using flammable creams.
“The provider assessed risks to ensure people were safe, however risk assessments had not always clearly identified current risks.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to ensure every safeguarding incident is referred to the local authority when required?
- 02How do you now check that medicines are given at the correct times, creams are applied as prescribed, and as-needed medicines are properly recorded?
- 03How are mental capacity assessments and best-interests decisions completed and recorded for people who cannot make particular care decisions?
- 04What new audits or management checks are in place to find problems with safeguarding, medicines and consent?
- 05Have all current risk assessments been reviewed, including risks linked to smoking and flammable creams?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and the report says ratings for uninspected questions were carried over from the last inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 January 2024 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, December 2018
Aspen House Limited was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with activities improved since the last inspection.
This was an unannounced inspection on 23 November 2018. One inspector spoke with four people living at the home, five care staff and the registered manager. They also observed care, reviewed four care records and checked management records.
The home supported up to 22 people with a learning disability or mental health condition. There were 21 people living there. Inspectors found that people were safe, medicines were managed properly and there were enough staff.
People were supported to make choices, manage their health, prepare food and take part in activities. Staff treated people with kindness and respect. Care plans were personal and kept up to date.
The overall rating was Good, as were all five areas inspected: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The overall rating stayed the same as at the July 2016 inspection, while the Responsive rating improved to Good.
Safe support
Risks were assessed and reviewed, staff understood safeguarding, and medicines were stored and administered safely.
“People received the support to manage their medicines safely.” from the report
Choice and independence
People chose how to spend their time, where to go and what support they wanted. Some people went out alone, worked or helped prepare meals.
“People chose how to spend their time and were given time to consider their options before making a decision.” from the report
Kind and respectful staff
Staff knew people's histories and interests and supported their privacy, dignity and relationships.
“People's felt that the staff were kind and caring and they were treated with respect.” from the report
Personalised activities
The home had improved how it supported people to take part in activities and experiences that interested them.
“On this inspection we saw that improvements had been made.” from the report
Good oversight
The manager and provider carried out checks, reviewed incidents and monitored action taken when improvements were needed.
“Quality checks on how the service was managed were completed.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How will you support my relative's individual interests and daily activities?
- 02How will you support my relative to make decisions and maintain independence?
- 03How are medicines checked and how do you review whether they are still suitable?
- 04How will you support my relative's health needs and attend healthcare appointments?
- 05How can my relative or our family raise a complaint, and how will it be investigated?
This was an unannounced inspection covering the overall quality of the home and all five CQC areas, including both accommodation and care. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 December 2018 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 Limited
3 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- January 2024Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 November 2010.
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
78 live-in carers within about an hour of Derby
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 £1,260 a week. 62 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
“Rachel is a quietly spoken, extremely caring person and looked after Val very well.”
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.