CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Aspens Cornford Lane
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found people were supported safely, but some safeguarding incidents were not reported to all required agencies.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 17 June 2021. Inspectors looked at safeguarding, safety, management and the culture of the home. They also checked infection prevention and control.
Inspectors found that people were supported by staff who knew them well. Risks were assessed, support plans gave staff guidance, and people were supported in a person-centred way. Inspectors also found kind interactions and an open, caring culture.
There was a shortfall in reporting. Some incidents that counted as safeguarding concerns were not reported to all the relevant external agencies, including the local authority or CQC. New processes and guidance had been introduced by the time of the inspection.
The home was inspected but not rated because this was a targeted inspection. The previous overall rating was Good at the inspection on 27 November 2018, but that rating was not reviewed during this visit.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they felt safe. Staff knew the signs of possible abuse and felt able to raise concerns.
“People told us they felt safe living at the service.” from the report
Individual risk support
Risks and changing needs were assessed and reviewed. Staff had guidance about how to support people in a personalised way.
“Risks to people were assessed and support plans provided guidance for staff on how to support each person in a person-centred way.” from the report
Kind and person-centred care
Inspectors saw kind interactions. Staff knew people well and supported their choices, independence and involvement in activities.
“People were supported in a person-centred way. Staff knew people well and were inclusive and empowering people living at the service.” from the report
Open culture and oversight
Staff said they felt supported. Managers used audits and tracked actions to improve the service.
“There was a governance system in place to ensure people received good care.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had arrangements for infection prevention, testing, protective equipment, visits and managing outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Safeguarding reporting
needs fixingSome incidents that amounted to safeguarding concerns were not reported to all relevant external agencies, including the local authority or CQC. The provider had introduced new processes and guidance to prevent this happening again.
“some accidents and incidents that constituted a safeguarding had not always been escalated to all external agencies.” from the report
No registered manager
needs fixingThere was no manager registered with CQC at the time of the inspection. Managers responsible for individual houses were in the process of registering.
“The service did not have a manager registered with the Care Quality Commission.” from the report
- 01How do you now make sure every safeguarding incident is reported to the local authority and CQC when required?
- 02What checks show that the new safeguarding reporting process is being followed in each house?
- 03Who is currently responsible for the service while the house managers are registering with CQC?
- 04How are people's risk assessments and support plans updated when their needs or behaviour change?
- 05How do you support people to take part in activities at the home and in the wider community?
This was a targeted inspection of specific safeguarding, safety, management and culture concerns, with infection control also checked; Safe and Well-led were inspected but not rated, and the other areas were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 July 2021 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 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with minor issues about wheelchair charging and staff knowing policy changes.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 20 September 2018. Inspectors visited six of the eight houses, observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care plans, medicines records, safety records, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines management, suitable training, detailed care plans and good support for people's health, communication, choices and independence.
People and relatives were positive about the care. Staff were described as kind, patient and respectful. People were supported to take part in activities, use local services and live active lives. The home had systems to learn from incidents, respond to complaints and monitor quality.
This was the first comprehensive inspection after a change of legal entity and new registration in October 2017. The previous inspection in September 2016 found no concerns.
Personalised lives
Care plans focused on what mattered to each person, including their interests, goals, strengths and wishes. People were supported to live active and meaningful lives.
“People received a person centred experience that enabled them to live active and meaningful lives in the way they wanted.” from the report
Kind staff
Staff knew people well, understood how they communicated and supported them with patience, dignity and respect.
“Staff knew the people they cared for well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect.” from the report
Support for independence
People were encouraged to do tasks they could manage themselves and to choose their activities, food, clothes and how they spent their time.
“People were encouraged to complete the tasks they were able to do themselves to maintain their independence.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could use facilities such as the art, pottery and IT studios, and were supported to go swimming, horse riding, shopping, eating out and on trips.
“People were part of their community, they used local facilities, accessed community health facilities and some people did voluntary work in the local community.” from the report
Learning and improvement
The home reviewed accidents, incidents, complaints and audits. It recorded actions and followed them up.
“Audits to monitor the quality of service were effective. They identified actions to improve the service which were followed up and carried out.” from the report
Wheelchair charging
minorInspectors found that electric wheelchairs had not always been charged. Staff said they were monitoring this, and inspectors saw wheelchairs being charged during the visit.
“Electric wheelchairs were used by some people to move around the premises, but we noted that there were times when these had not been charged.” from the report
Policy updates
needs fixingQuality checks found that not all staff knew about policy changes. The home was monitoring handover and communication books so staff signed to confirm they had read updates.
“Audits by the registered manager highlighted that not all staff were aware of policy changes” from the report
- 01How do you check that every electric wheelchair is charged and ready when the person needs it?
- 02How are policy changes communicated to staff, and how do you check that all staff have understood them?
- 03How will my relative be involved in reviews of their care, goals and activities?
- 04How will staff communicate with my relative if they use pictures, Makaton or non-verbal communication?
- 05What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative, based on their interests?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the overall service; inspectors visited six of the eight houses and reviewed a range of care, safety and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 November 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 Aspens Cornford Lane
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- July 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not ratedWell-led: Inspected but not rated
- November 2018GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2017
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 October 2017.
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
39 live-in carers within about an hour of Kent
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. 33 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“Always on time and with a lovely smile for my mum. Theresa is kind and sensitive to my mum's needs.”
“Irene was a very kind and empathetic carer who knew just the right words to say to put a smile on my face.”
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.