Aston Home Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first inspection for this service. This key question has been rated good.

This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 64 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care choices.

People and relatives, we spoke with confirmed they did not all have access to people’s care plans. Some confirmed they had seen a care plan once, but others had not reviewed or had input into one at all.

We found, where 1 person’s care plan stated they had capacity to make decisions about their personal care. However, the care plan also informed staff if the person refused personal care, care staff were to prompt and call the person’s relative who could assist. This, therefore, took away the person’s right to refuse their personal care at that time.

People’s care plans did not always contain enough specific information to provide staff with informative guidance to monitor and maintain any risks or needs they had.

Staff we spoke with, however, confirmed they had the information required to meet people’s needs, and reviewed care plans as and when required to inform them of people’s changing needs. Staff also confirmed they delivered care in a person-centred way. For example, 1 staff member told us, “Person centred care is very important, during calls, we discuss all aspects of care and, dementia and capacity, inform the next of kin and record it all.”

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People’s relatives confirmed overall staff shared concerns about people’s health needs promptly.

Staff confirmed people were reviewed regularly and they worked with the provider to share concerns openly with required professionals.

People’s care records included partnership working, where referrals were made, and professional advice and guidance was sought and followed.

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information, or in formats tailored to individual needs.

People and relatives overall confirmed they had not received a copy of their care plan, or they had not been provided with an up-to-date care plan since first using the service.

Some people shared concerns around the language barrier between themselves and staff. Comments included, “They [Staff] don’t all understand, their English is not that good” and “I don’t think staff have enough training around the English culture, they [Staff] don’t always understand how I like my food for example.”

One relative told us their relative receiving care wrote down their information to communicate with staff, as they could not always understand them.

Other people confirmed staff communicated with them effectively and spoke English well. One relative told us, “Staff communicate with [Person’s name] in a way they understand. The staff are getting better with their English, the staff member who visits in the week speaks really good English. When 2 staff members come together, we asked them to talk in English whilst they complete the visit, which they now do.”

We found, some people’s care plans required further information to inform staff of how to meet their specific needs. Although staff confirmed they had the information required to meet people’s needs, we found where more complex care was required, staff were not always provided with the required information, placing people at risk of harm. Despite our findings, 1 staff member told us, “Communication is key, with some people I use sign language.”

The provider confirmed should people need information in different accessible formats they would provide this, as required and people had access to the online recording system, should they request it.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

People and relatives, we spoke with, confirmed they knew how to raise a complaint or feedback any concerns they had about the service. Some confirmed staff spent time with them listening to them and involving them during their care.

One person told us, “We, [Person and staff members] have a conversation, we have a cup of tea or coffee and have a chat, they are very friendly, they come regularly and ask if there is anything I need or want doing.”

The provider had a complaints audit in place, whilst the record detailed the action taken following concerns raised; it did not include if a response had been provided to the complainant and if they were satisfied with the outcome. The provider confirmed complainants were informed of the action taken and the outcome to their complaint, but they were not recording this. In response to us raising this, the provider confirmed they will include this information within the complaint record.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People and their relatives confirmed the provider moved the times of their calls to suit the person. One relative told us, they felt the service was flexible, as they informed staff when their relative would be returning home from community activities later than their planned time, staff completed the care call to suit the needs of the person.

Staff completed referrals to external health and social care professionals when required to ensure people had access to required care to meet their needs.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Staff provided support to one person who could no longer leave their home, although they wanted to, following reviews and assessments this was no longer possible. Staff supported this person with more activities within their home. Staff looked out how they could improve the person’s engagement and lifestyle within the home environment, and they communicated with the person’s family to ensure different activities were available to the person.

Staff completed training in equality and diversity, and had access to policies relating to equality, diversity and inclusion.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

At the time of our inspection, people’s care records did not contain any information regarding decisions about their future wishes at the end of their life.

At the time of our assessment, the management team told us no one at the service was receiving end of life care. The management team confirmed they would offer an open and honest approach if people wanted to discuss their end-of-life care plans, which would include the recording of their wishes and preferences. The provider would also contact external specialist agencies if needed. We found however, the provider did not proactively source this information to ensure they gathered some initial information on people’s end of life preferences.

The provider ensured staff received training in supporting people to make informed decisions. The management team told us they were assured staff were allowing people to make decisions into their care, future aspirations, and what outcomes they want from the care. Although, we did not review any evidence of the monitoring of this.