Aspen Court is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection.

Aspen Court accommodates 40 people providing care to people with nursing needs. At the time of our inspection there were 37 people using the service.

The last inspection took place in September 2017 when the provider for this location was Bupa Care Homes (CFH Care) Limited.

This was the first inspection of the service since the provider changed to HC One Oval Limited. This inspection took place on 18 and 19 June 2018 and was unannounced.

Aspen Court had a registered manager. 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 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People and their family members raised concerns that they had to wait, sometimes for lengthy periods of time for staff to respond when they activated the buzzer to request assistance. Some family members were concerned that there was not always a staff presence in the communal area of Aspen Court. The registered manger informed us they would monitor the response time of staff to requests for assistance and this would be discussed at the next resident and relative meeting. Alterations to staff shift patterns were set to be introduced to provide greater flexibility.

We found improvements were needed to the accuracy of some records, which assessed risk, however we found no evidence that inaccurate records had had a negative impact on people’s care. The registered manager had identified similar shortfalls and had organised additional training for staff. People’s safety was promoted by staff that had the appropriate training to monitor and support people to be safe. There were sufficient staff to keep people safe and they had undergone a robust recruitment process. Staff were aware of their responsibilities in monitoring people’s safety and well-being. Environmental risks were reduced through regular maintenance and cleaning of the service. People received their medicine and were supported by staff with the appropriate knowledge and skills in the management of medicine.

People's needs were assessed and regularly reviewed to ensure people received effective care. People were 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. People’s independence was encouraged and the environment enabled people to move freely around the premises, including the garden. Staff received the training they needed and opportunities were available for staff to further their knowledge and develop new skills. People's dietary requirements along with their likes and dislikes with regards to food and drink were recorded. People expressed satisfaction with the meals. People were supported to access a range of health care professionals and staff worked in partnership with external agencies to ensure and promote people's wellbeing.

People spoke positively about the caring attitude and approach of staff. Staff promoted people's dignity and all interactions between staff, those using the service and family members were positive to ensure the best outcome for people. Many of the staff were dementia or dignity champions (an advocate for people who shares their knowledge with work colleagues) and were working towards gaining recognised awards. People had personalised their rooms to create a homely environment.

People were encouraged to make decisions about their care and treatment and people’s care plans reflected their opinion as to the care they wished to receive. A