CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Aspen Place
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Some call bells had been ringing for over 10 minutes, and people and relatives reported delays. Medicines, safeguarding, recruitment, risk assessments and infection control were otherwise found to be managed safely.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Some people did not have enough meaningful activity or person-centred support. Inspectors also found inconsistent communication with some healthcare professionals, although staff training, food and support with healthcare needs were positive.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. The report says people and relatives were generally positive about staff’s kindness and compassion.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not inspected during this focused inspection. The inspection did identify concerns about activities, personal preferences and response times to call bells.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- The home’s monitoring systems had not identified or acted on some concerns about staffing, activities, dementia support and communication with healthcare professionals. Inspectors found a breach of governance requirements.
What inspectors found, September 2022
Aspen Place is rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe medicines and kind care, but delays, person-centred care and oversight needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited on 30 June 2022 and reviewed Safe, Effective and Well-led. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and healthcare professionals, observed care and checked records.
The home was not always able to respond to call bells promptly. Some people had limited activities and person-centred support. Inspectors also found delays and inconsistent communication with some healthcare professionals. The home’s checks had not always found these problems.
There were also important positives. Medicines were managed safely, people were protected from abuse, and staff training and recruitment were appropriate. People and relatives generally said staff were kind and knew people well. The overall rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement.
Medicines
People received their medicines as prescribed. Staff understood the importance of giving time-specific medicines correctly.
“People received their medicines as prescribed and medicines were managed safely.” from the report
Protection from abuse
Staff understood safeguarding responsibilities, and concerns were investigated and referred appropriately.
“People were protected from the risk of abuse.” from the report
Staff training
Staff completed training, induction and supervision. They were supported by mentors and regular team discussions.
“There was a strong focus on developing staff knowledge to enhance the delivery of effective care and support.” from the report
Food and drink
People had food choices and could choose where to eat. Staff followed specialist advice for modified diets.
“People were supported to eat and drink enough and maintain a balance diet.” from the report
Kind relationships
People and relatives generally described staff as caring. Inspectors saw warm and pleasant interactions.
“There were positive relationships between people and staff; interactions were warm, friendly and pleasant.” from the report
Call bell delays
needs fixingCall bells were not always answered promptly. Inspectors observed some bells ringing for more than 10 minutes, and the home reported technical problems with the system.
“Our observations confirmed some call bells had been ringing for over 10 minutes.” from the report
Limited activities
needs fixingSome people had limited opportunities for social activity and relied on staff to help them take part. Records showed that some people were not offered social stimulation for up to 29 days.
“The lack of opportunities for people to have social engagement increased the potential risk of social isolation.” from the report
Personal preferences not always met
seriousInspectors found examples where people’s care did not match their preferences or needs, including support with showers and eating.
“The provider had failed to do everything reasonably practicable to ensure people received person-centred care that is appropriate to meet their needs and personal preferences.” from the report
Weak oversight
seriousThe home’s audits had not always identified concerns about person-centred care, staffing feedback or communication with healthcare professionals.
“The provider failed to assess, monitor and improve the quality and safety of the services provided including the quality of the experience of people in receiving those services.” from the report
Communication with healthcare professionals
needs fixingSome healthcare professionals reported delays in being contacted about people’s health needs. Inspectors said this increased the risk of people not receiving joined-up care.
“The mixed communication experience of healthcare professionals increased the risk of people not receiving joined up care.” from the report
- 01How long do people currently wait for call bells to be answered, including at weekends and during busy periods?
- 02What activities are now available for people living with dementia, and how do you record whether people are offered activities suited to their interests?
- 03How do you make sure each person’s preferences for showers, personal care and eating are followed?
- 04What has changed in the way staff contact healthcare professionals about changes in people’s health?
- 05How do your audits now identify and fix problems with staffing, activities and person-centred care?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 September 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, May 2019
Aspen Place is rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with the previous lack of outside space resolved.
This was a planned comprehensive inspection over three days. One visit was unannounced and the other two were arranged at short notice. The inspector observed care, spoke with people, visitors, staff and health professionals, and checked care records, medicines, training, recruitment, complaints and quality checks.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines systems, well-maintained premises and good links with health professionals. People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect, and staff knew their needs and preferences well.
The home supported people to make choices, stay active and maintain relationships. End of life care was described as especially compassionate. The previous inspection had identified a lack of outside space because of building work. Inspectors found this had been addressed after the remodelling.
Kind and compassionate staff
People and visitors gave very positive feedback. Inspectors saw warm relationships and staff who knew people well.
“People were cared for by genuinely kind and compassionate staff who were dedicated and committed to ensuring that people received the care they needed and wanted.” from the report
Personalised care
Staff understood people's backgrounds, preferences and goals. Care plans included personal wishes, and inspectors saw evidence that goals were achieved.
“People received an exceptionally personalised service that was very responsive to their individual needs.” from the report
End of life support
People's wishes were recorded and staff showed compassion towards both residents and those important to them.
“The registered managers and staff displayed an exceptionally compassionate and empathetic approach towards people and those important to them at the end of their lives.” from the report
Good safety arrangements
Risks were assessed and reviewed, staff understood safeguarding, and accidents and incidents were monitored for patterns.
“Good - People were safe and protected from avoidable harm. Legal requirements were met.” from the report
Strong management
Managers were approachable and had a detailed understanding of the service. Quality checks were used to identify and follow up improvements.
“The service was consistently managed and well-led. Leaders and the culture they created promoted high-quality, person-centred care.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How would you meet my relative's specific nursing or dementia needs, and how would their care plan be kept up to date?
- 02How do you record and review medicines, including medicines given only when needed?
- 03What outside space and dementia-friendly features are now available following the remodelling?
- 04How would you support my relative's end of life wishes, and how would you keep the family informed?
- 05What activities, technology and visiting arrangements would be available to support my relative's interests and relationships?
This was a comprehensive inspection of the care home, covering premises and care and rating all five key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 May 2019 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 Place
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- September 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2016GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
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.