We carried out a review of the data available to us about Aspire PC Limited on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Aspire PC Limited, you can give feedback on this service.
The service was last inspected on 13 March 2017. The overall rating after that inspection was requires improvement. A requirement notice was issued for regulation 17 good governance. The governance systems required embedding to ensure regulations were met. Following the last inspection, we asked the registered provider to complete an action plan to show what they would do and by when. The service had made improvements so that this regulation was now met.
Aspire PC Limited is a domiciliary care agency. It provides personal care for people living in their own homes. Not everyone using Aspire PC Limited receives the regulated activity; CQC only inspects the service being received by people provided with ‘personal care’; help with tasks related to personal hygiene and eating. Where they do, we also take into account any wider social care provided. At the time of the inspection, there was one younger adult who used the service for personal care.
There was a manager at the service who was registered with CQC. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The leadership, management and staff were passionate about providing a person centred and caring culture. (Person centred means that care is tailored to meet the needs and aspirations of each person, as an individual.) The management team and staff shared the vision of the service. Staff were very committed to providing care that was centred on people's individual needs.
The relative of the person who used the service had confidence in the care delivered and told us their relative received good care and support. They told us their relative felt safe, the staff were caring, kind and respected their choices and decisions.
Care records for the person were detailed, reflected the needs of the person who used the service and had been reviewed. This included risks associated with the health, safety or wellbeing of the person.
The person who used the service was supported with their health and dietary needs, where this was part of their plan of care or in an emergency.
The person who used the service was supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The relative of the person who used the service told us when they or their relative raised any issues with staff and managers, their concerns were listened to and acted upon.
Staff were familiar with the person’s individual needs and were able to describe how they maintained people’s privacy and dignity.
Staff told us they worked as part of a team. There was a regular team of care staff who knew the person they supported well. When staff were recruited, a system was in place so that the relevant information and documents were obtained. The service had systems and processes in place to provide training and supervision for staff so that they had the skills, knowledge and experience to deliver effective care and support.
Systems and processes were in place to protect people from abuse and avoidable harm, including the management of financial transactions.
At the time of the inspection the agency was supporting four people who required personal care. We visited two of those people in their own home to obtain their views and experience of receiving support from this agency.
At the time of this inspection the service employed seven staff who provided personal care to those people. We spoke with four of those staff to obtain their views and experience of working for this agency.
We told the registered provider two days before our inspection that we would be visiting the service. We did this because the registered manager is sometimes out of the office and we needed to be sure that they would be available.
There was a manager at the service who was registered with CQC. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The service was last inspected on 16 August 2016. Their overall rating was requires improvement and requirement notices were issued for regulation 12 safe care and treatment, regulation 17 good governance and regulation 19 fit and proper persons employed. Governance systems had been implemented, but these required embedding to ensure regulations were met. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
The leadership, management and staff were passionate about providing a person centred and caring culture. (Person centred means that care is tailored to meet the needs and aspirations of each person, as an individual.) The vision of the service was shared by the management team and staff. Staff were very committed to providing care that was centred on people's individual needs.
Staff told us they worked as part of a team, but not all staff felt that Aspire was a good place to work.
People had confidence in the care delivered and told us they received good care and support. They told us they felt safe, the staff were caring, kind and respected their choices and decisions.
People were supported with their health and dietary needs, where this was part of their plan of care or in an emergency.
People and relatives told us when they raised any issues with staff and managers, their concerns were listened to and acted upon.
Staff were familiar with people’s individual needs and were able to describe how they maintained people’s privacy and dignity.
Staff had a good understanding of what to do if they saw or suspected abuse or if an allegation was made to them.
There was sufficient staff to provide a regular team of care staff for people.
Staff had received training to carry out their role, so that people received effective care and a system had been established to ensure staff had received all the required training and that this was updated on a regular basis to keep their knowledge and skills up to date. Staff received regular supervision and appraisal.
Care records had been reviewed, but discussions with staff identified the care plans did not always accurately reflect the care provided, which in turn meant risks associated with the health, safety or wellbeing of people were not accurate.
At the time of the inspection the agency was supporting 5 people who required personal care. We visited those people in their own homes. At the visits people were supported by staff from the agency at their request. We were able to speak with three of those staff during the visits. On one of the visits we also spoke with a relative of a person using the service.
At the time of this inspection the service employed 28 staff who supported people. Not all those staff provided personal care to people. We telephoned 23 of those staff and were able to speak with six of them to obtain their views and experience of working for this agency.
We told the provider two days before our inspection that we would be visiting the service. We did this because the registered manager is sometimes out of the office and we needed to be sure that they would be available.
There was a manager at the service who was registered with CQC. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act and associated Regulations about how the service is run.
The service was last inspected on 16 May 2013 and was meeting the requirements of the regulations we checked at that time. This is the first rated inspection of the agency.
There was a strong person centred and caring culture in the home. (Person centred means that care is tailored to meet the needs and aspirations of each person, as an individual.) The vision of the service was shared by the management team and staff. Staff and people who used the service told us that they thought the service was well led.
Staff told us they worked as part of a team, that Aspire was a good place to work and staff were very committed to providing care that was centred on people's individual needs.
People had confidence in the service and felt safe and secure when receiving support. Staff had a good understanding of what to do if they saw or suspected abuse or if an allegation was made to them.
There was sufficient staff to provide a regular team of care staff for people, but improvements were required with the recruitment of those staff so that all the required information was available, to demonstrate they were suitable staff to be employed.
Safe systems were not in place to manage people’s medicines.
Staff had received some training to carry out their role, so that people received effective care, but systems and processes were not established to demonstrate staff received all the required training and that this was updated on a regular basis to keep their knowledge and skills up to date. Staff received regular supervision and an appraisal system was in the process of being developed.
Care records had been reviewed but did not always reflect the care delivered to people. Risks to the health, safety or wellbeing of people who used the service were assessed and action was taken to minimise those risks, but we found not all risks with sufficient information to minimise those risks were identified on the risk assessment.
There were quality assurance systems in place to monitor the quality of the service provided, but these required improvement to ensure the service met all regulations.
People told us the service provided good care and support. They told us they felt safe, the staff were caring, kind and respected their choices and decisions. Staff were familiar with people’s individual needs and were able to describe how they maintained people’s privacy and dignity.
Staff sought people’s consent to care and treatment.
People were supported with their health and dietary needs, where this was part of their plan of care or in an emergency.
People and relatives told us when they raised any issues with staff and managers, their concerns were listened to.
We found three breaches of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of this report.
Before people received any care or support the provider asked for their consent and acted in accordance with their wishes. People we visited said that they understood the care and had given consent.
People experienced care and support that met their needs and protected their rights. The provider had ensured people had support plans, which either themselves and/or their carers had been involved in preparing. This was to protect peoples' rights and ensure their needs were appropriately met.
People's health, safety and welfare were protected when more than one provider was involved in their care and treatment. This was because the provider worked in co-operation with others. We contacted five professionals involved in the care of people supported by staff from Aspire. They gave us positive comments and confirmed that they worked together to deliver the appropriate care to the people.
People were cared for and supported by, suitably qualified, skilled and experienced staff. We checked four staff files and noted that the provider had an effective recruitment and selection process.
There was an effective complaints system available to people. Comments and complaints people made were responded to appropriately. Two people told us they were given support by the staff to make comments. They said they felt the provider had listened and made changes.