Aston Home Care Limited

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

Well-led – this means we looked for evidence that service leadership, management and governance assured high-quality, person-centred care; supported learning and innovation; and promoted an open, fair culture.

This is the first inspection for this service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant the management and leadership was inconsistent. Leaders and the culture they created did not always support the delivery of high-quality, person-centred care.

The provider was in breach of a legal regulation in relation to a condition on their registration preventing them from supporting people with a learning disability and or autistic people.

The provider was also in breach of good governance.

This service scored 54 (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 had a shared vision, strategy and culture. However, there was not always transparency from the provider.

The management team provided us with contradicting information regarding staffing numbers and training figures on our first request. We were also provided with differing totals of the numbers of people receiving care and those receiving a regulated activity.

Staff however, shared an ethos of putting people and their care needs first. One member of staff told us, “I know the service users well, I have very good communication with them, I ask them about their hobbies, their future plans, they share their problems with me. The service user is the priority.”

The provider did not always have inclusive leaders who understood the context in which they delivered care and support.

We found the management team did not always have a robust oversight of the service to ensure improvements were identified and addressed. The management team had failed to follow conditions on their registration and submit all notifications in line with their requirements.

The provider had a registered manager in post, who had support from an operations manager on a part time basis and a deputy manager who was also a registered manager for another service under the provider. Whilst we found oversight of the service was not always effective, staff confirmed they felt supported by the management team and felt confident in raising any concerns with them.

One staff member told us, “I speak with [The registered manager and operations manager] they take action when needed, they definitely help us out.” Another staff member told us, “I feel supported by the staff and the management, I raise concerns when needed. I think the service is running well.”

We informed the management team of the concerns we identified during our inspection, who confirmed they would review the concerns and take the required action.

The provider fostered a positive culture where people felt they could speak up and their voice would be heard.

Staff had the opportunity to provide feedback and suggestions about the service through regular team meetings. Although the meeting minutes we reviewed did not show any staff feedback was provided during these meetings, staff we spoke with told us they felt able to share feedback and make improvements to the service.

Staff we spoke with confirmed they felt confident to raise any concerns with the management team and felt required action would be taken following concerns or issues being raised.

Staff recruitment files we reviewed, contained copies of the provider’s whistle blowing policy which staff signed to show they had read and understood.

The provider valued diversity in their workforce. They worked towards an inclusive and fair culture by improving equality and equity for people who worked for them.

Staff were provided with opportunities to develop within their role, and they were supported by the management team to accomplish this.

Staff we spoke with confirmed they felt supported within their role and by the management team and they were confident if they faced any issues, these would be dealt with accordingly.

The provider did not always have clear responsibilities, roles, systems of accountability or good governance. They did not always act on the best information about risk, performance and outcomes, or share this securely with others when appropriate.

Whilst the provider had systems in place to audit the service these were not always effective at identifying the concerns we found. This included people’s care records requiring further information, the level of training required to meet people’s complex needs, correct documents in place in relation to the mental capacity act and the monitoring of service dates of equipment.

During our inspection, we received details of safeguarding referrals made by the provider to the local authority, which the provider had not notified the CQC of. We requested the provider notify us of any outstanding safeguarding referrals in line with the requirements. The provider informed us they were having difficulties with the submission portal; however, they had not informed us of this difficulty prior to the inspection and they had not used alternative well-established methods to submit these. We found the provider was in breach of regulation.

During our inspection we identified the provider was delivering care to a group of people they had a condition on their registration preventing them from delivering care to. Although the provider had applied to remove the condition on their registration to allow them to support this group of people.

Whilst people and their relatives provided positive feedback on the care they received; and following our review, the provider worked with the local authority to find alternative providers for these people, the provider was in breach of registration.

The provider did not always understand their duty to collaborate and work in partnership, so services worked seamlessly for people.

During our inspection process the local authority confirmed they placed the provider into a Quality Improvement Process. Whilst the local authority confirmed the provider was working with them to address the concerns raised, they told us they found it difficult to obtain information from the provider following recent requests, as the provider did not always share this responsively.

Staff we spoke with confirmed they worked well as a team and with external professionals to meet people’s needs. People’s care records also detailed where external health and social care professionals’ input was sought, and guidance was followed.

The provider focused on continuous learning, innovation and improvement across the organisation.

Staff were encouraged to be open and honest, and lessons were learnt and shared within the team when accidents or incidents occurred.

Staff confirmed they were given the opportunity to share feedback or provide suggestions to improve people’s care or the service they received, through team meetings, during supervisions, or informally during office visits. One staff member told us, “I felt 1 person required support from 2 staff members, be a double up call rather than a single call, I spoke with the person and informed them of the risk to them, and then I informed the manager about this, who took action.”

The provider completed questionnaires over the phone with people and their relatives to gain their input on the service. Although individual questionnaires showed where action was taken, there was no analysis of the questionnaires to ensure themes and trends could be identified and improvements could be made. When we raised this, the provider confirmed they had been advised by the local authority to capture the results in one place, however, they had not yet put this recommendation in place.