Aster Care

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence. This key question has been rated good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this. Assessments considered people’s health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs, to enable them to receive person centred care and support that had the best possible outcomes. Care plans were reviewed regularly and updated and amended accordingly where people’s care had changed. The service worked with other health and social care professionals to support people and provide consistency in care. People’s nutrition and hydration needs were met. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.

This service scored 75 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People’s care needs were assessed and reviewed regularly. Care plans contained person-centred information about what was important to and for the person to be able to live their lives as they wished. They were amended and updated when people’s care needs changed. Assessments considered people’s health, care, wellbeing, and communication needs, to enable them to receive person centred care and support that had the best possible outcomes. A staff member told us how they discussed referrals and admissions as a management team. They said that they would get a referral from the local authority and would seek to gain information on the person’s past placements. An assessment would be completed, and they would review the person’s care needs and ensure they could meet them. They would assess if the person would also fit in well with the other service users living at the home.

The service involved people in planning their care and support. Care plans were regularly reviewed and updated when there were changes to people’s care and support. People’s care plans included assessments using best practice tools. For example, people’s mobility and skin integrity needs were assessed and plans put in place to meet their identified support. People were supported to have enough to eat and drink. Nutritional assessments had been completed and were regularly reviewed. When specialist support or advice was needed, this was sought. For example, when there were concerns about people's ability to swallow, speech and language therapist (SALT) advice was sought. Guidance on supporting people with their nutritional needs was detailed in people's care plans and we saw that staff followed the guidance. Some people were having their food or fluid intake monitored. Where people were at risk of malnutrition, their weights were monitored. All of the charts we looked at had been completed in full, including when people had been offered a drink or food but declined. People and their relatives spoke positively about the food choices. Comments included, “He likes and enjoys the food. He can get snacks and drinks when he wants” and “He likes the food. He can also snack when he wants.”

We did not look at How staff, teams and services work together during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Supporting people to live healthier lives during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

We did not look at Monitoring and improving outcomes during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

People and their relatives we spoke with told us staff always sought consent before providing support. Comments included, “I am asked to participate in things but sometimes I choose not to. I feel heard and valued by the current management” and “If he doesn’t want to participate or want something, he makes it very clear, so they always ask.” The Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) provides a legal framework for making particular decisions on behalf of people who may lack the mental capacity to do so for themselves. The Act requires that, as far as possible, people make their own decisions and are helped to do so when needed. When they lack mental capacity to take particular decisions, any made on their behalf must be in their best interests and as least restrictive as possible. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment when this is in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA. In care homes, and some hospitals, this is usually through MCA application procedures called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA, and whether any conditions on authorisations to deprive a person of their liberty had the appropriate legal authority and were being met. People’s rights were protected because staff acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. The registered manager followed the principles and guidance relating to MCA and DoLS. Care plans contained records of mental capacity assessments and best interests decisions. All necessary DoLS applications had been submitted by the provider. These applications were reviewed each year, and the necessary reapplications submitted.