CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Aspen House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Staff understood safeguarding and risk procedures, staffing levels met people's needs, and medicines were managed safely, although there had been some previous administration errors.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and care was delivered by trained staff. Improvements had been made in mental capacity and liberty safeguards, and people were supported with food, drink and healthcare.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Inspectors saw positive interactions, and people and relatives were involved in care decisions where possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care was personalised and people were supported with relationships, activities, hobbies and personal goals. Information was available in formats that people could understand.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Managers had improved checks and audits and had a clear focus on learning from earlier problems. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to give feedback.
What inspectors found, February 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, personalised care and clear improvements, although some medicine errors and refurbishment work remained.
Inspectors visited on 7 February 2023. They spoke with two people, contacted 10 relatives, spoke with staff and managers, and reviewed care plans, recruitment records, training records, audits and policies. They also checked infection prevention and control.
The home supports up to 10 people with learning disabilities and autism. There were eight people living there. Inspectors found people were safe, treated kindly, involved in decisions and supported to follow their interests, maintain relationships and access health services.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. This was an improvement from the previous Requires Improvement rating published on 10 March 2022. The report says improvements had been made in infection control, decision-making, care, activities, the environment and management oversight.
Personalised support
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, preferences and goals. Staff supported people with everyday tasks as well as trips and activities linked to their interests.
“People's care was personalised to them, and people were respected as individuals.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors observed people looking relaxed and comfortable around staff. Staff supported privacy, dignity, choice and independence.
“We observed that people were relaxed and comfortable within the home and around the staff.” from the report
Good staffing and training
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and provide their allocated one-to-one support. Recruitment checks and training were in place.
“Sufficient staffing levels ensured that people received any one to one support hours they were allocated.” from the report
Improved leadership
The home had improved its quality checks and audits after problems found at the previous inspection. Managers and staff showed a clear commitment to further improvement.
“Systems and processes were in place to monitor the quality of the care provided.” from the report
Previous medicine errors
minorThere had been some medicine administration errors in the months before the inspection. The report says action was taken and improvements were made, but families should ask how this is now checked.
“There had been some medicine administration errors over previous months, but when this occurred, appropriate action was taken by the registered manager” from the report
Some refurbishment unfinished
minorThe home had been decorated and maintained since the previous inspection, but some work was still outstanding. This included replacing a person's bath.
“Some areas still required updating, for example, a person's bath was waiting to be replaced” from the report
- 01What medicine errors happened recently, and what checks are now in place to prevent them?
- 02When will the outstanding refurbishment work, including the bath replacement, be completed?
- 03How will you make sure each person receives their planned one-to-one support hours?
- 04How are people's personal goals, family contact and activities reviewed?
- 05How can relatives give feedback or raise a concern, and how is it followed up?
The inspection rated all five key questions and included infection prevention and control checks; the previous overall rating was Requires Improvement, published on 10 March 2022. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 February 2023 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, March 2022
Aspen House was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found major progress since the previous Inadequate rating, but infection control and management systems were not yet fully reliable.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. The inspector visited on 6 and 25 January 2022, reviewed records and information sent afterwards, observed two people, spoke with four relatives and five staff, and checked medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. Risks were assessed and reviewed, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels were suitable, and people were protected from abuse. Inspectors also found that people were supported to make choices and be independent.
There were still weaknesses. Infection control records were not always clear, and mops and buckets were initially stored in a way that could cause contamination. Management checks, staff support and auditing had improved but were not yet fully established.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. The other three areas were not inspected during this visit, so their earlier ratings were carried forward.
Risk management
People's risks were assessed, included in care plans and reviewed regularly. Environmental and emergency checks had also improved.
“Risks to people were managed safely. Individual risk assessments had been completed and were regularly updated.” from the report
Medicines
Medicine management had improved, with safer storage, trained staff and fewer errors.
“These improvements had drastically reduced the number of medicine errors and the system was now being operated safely.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found suitable staffing levels and checks on new staff before they worked with people.
“Suitable numbers of staff were deployed across the home to ensure people's needs were met.” from the report
Safeguarding
Staff understood how to recognise and report different types of abuse. People were protected from abuse.
“People were protected from the risk of abuse. Staff were trained in safeguarding people and had access to safeguarding and whistleblowing policies.” from the report
Infection control records
needs fixingInfection control audits were not clear enough, and some areas were recorded as satisfactory when the flooring was not suitable for proper disinfection.
“the recording in the infection control audits was not clear enough to ensure all staff knew how to complete the document.” from the report
Storage and contamination risk
needs fixingMops and buckets were initially stored outside and exposed to the weather and possible cross-contamination. This was improved by the second inspection day.
“We also found mops and buckets stored outside, open to the element and potential cross contamination.” from the report
Management systems not embedded
needs fixingStaff supervision, learning support and auditing had been restarted but had not yet become established throughout the home.
“Management measures concerned with staff performance and for their learning, support and supervision were also re-established. However, this was not yet fully embedded due to the timescales involved.” from the report
- 01What has been done since the inspection to make infection control audits accurate and consistent?
- 02How are mops and buckets now stored to prevent contamination?
- 03How do you check that staff supervision, training support and audits remain fully embedded?
- 04What were the ratings for Effective, Caring and Responsive at the previous comprehensive inspection?
- 05What further improvements are planned following the move from Inadequate to Requires Improvement?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three ratings were carried forward from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 March 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.
Every inspection of Aspen House
7 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- February 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2022Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2022Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- January 2021Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvement
- December 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 24 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
89 live-in carers within about an hour of North Northamptonshire
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 £980 to £1,260 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
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.