Archived: Aster House

At the previous inspection, the service was rated Good. At this inspection, we found the service remained Good.

People continued to be protected against the risk of harm and abuse. Staff were aware of the different types of abuse and how people may present when being subjected to abuse. Staff received on-going safeguarding training that gave them the skills and understanding on how to respond and report suspected abuse. The service developed comprehensive risk assessments that identified risks and gave staff clear guidance on how to support people safely.

People continued to receive their medicines in line with good practice. The service had systems in place that ensured people received their medicines as prescribed. The storage, administration and recording of medicines were effective.

People were supported by sufficient numbers of suitable staff who met their needs safely. The service maintained robust employment processes that ensured only suitably vetted staff were employed. Staff received on-going supervisions and appraisal where they reflected on their working practices.

People’s care was delivered in line with the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards. Staff sought people’s consent to care and treatment and respected their decisions. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.

People continued to have their dietary and nutritional needs met by the service. People had access to sufficient amounts of food and drink that met their preferences in line with their health care needs. People had their health needs monitored in line with guidance from healthcare professionals.

People were encouraged to make decisions about their care. Staff supported people to develop their life skills to enhance their independence. People were supported to maintain their dignity and were treated with respect. People continued to be encouraged to participate in activities of their choice both in the service and in the local community. Where appropriate people were supported to seek employment.

People continued to receive care and support that was person centred and tailored to their needs. People had access to their care plans which were reviewed regularly to reflect their changing needs. People were aware of how to raise a concern or complaint and felt their complaints would be addressed in a timely manner.

People told us the registered manager was approachable and accessible throughout the day. The registered manager had embedded a culture of transparency, empowerment and inclusion for all within the service.

The service continued to carry out audits of the service to drive improvements. Records confirmed daily, weekly and monthly audits relating to the maintenance, fire, medicines and care plans were undertaken regularly with issues identified acted on in a timely manner.

Aster House had six permanent residents and one person on a trial period at the time of our inspection. Three people we spoke with made positive comments such as this was 'The best place I've been in' and that the 'Staff are nice'. All of them said that they were satisfied with the care and support they received.

We spoke with a person's care coordinator who complimented the service and said that 'I'm overall pleased with the placement'. Staff told us that 'We're doing our best for the residents' and that 'I do enjoy coming to work every day'.

We observed during our inspection that people were treated with respect and saw that people had detailed care plans which were developed with the involvement of the people using the service and their care coordinators. We found that people's needs were identified and their care was planned in a way to meet their assessed needs. The care plans were available and were reviewed on a regular basis. People's health was monitored and they received medical attention when it was needed. We also found that the people were supported to receive safe and coordinated care.

There were procedures in place to protect people from abuse. The provider operated an effective recruitment process to ensure that only suitably qualified, skilled and experienced were employed at the service. We also found that there was a system in place to monitor the service to ensure people's well-being and that the quality of the service was adequate.

We saw that care plans were updated regularly and there was evidence that care was planned with the individual. Each person had an individual risk assessment with clear actions of what their triggers were and how staff can support the person as well as what action to take if the person was experiencing a crisis.

We found that people were given various menu options that suited individual tastes and preferences. One person said 'they are very flexible with food here. They cater for our various needs.'

Medication was administered by trained and competent staff who were aware of the side effects and how to monitor those who were self medicating. We checked medicine administration records and found no discrepancies.

There were enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff had completed relevant training and there was a plan in place for those whose refresher training was due. Appraisals and supervision were done regularly.

People told us that they knew how to make complaints if the need arose. We reviewed the complaints log and found that complaints were investigated and resolved amicably.