Aquarius Care Home

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.

At our last assessment we rated this key question requires improvement. At this assessment the rating has changed to good. This meant people’s outcomes were consistently good, and people’s feedback confirmed this.

This service scored 62 (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 made sure people’s care and treatment was effective by assessing and reviewing their health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. People’s health, social and emotional needs were assessed before they moved to the service. However, the provider had not ensured people’s care records had been kept up to date and reflected changes in people’s care needs.

The provider had not acted in a timely manner to ensure people’s care records were an accurate reflection of their care needs. Shortfalls in people’s care records were identified at our last assessment in January 2025. The provider had developed an action plan to address these omissions in people’s care plans, but this action plan had not been created until September 2025. As a result, there continued to be areas of people’s care plans which did not reflect their current needs.

New assessments for people moving to the service were comprehensive and included detailed information to guide staff about their health, social and medical needs, including their likes and preferences.

People’s communication needs had been assessed and guidance was available for staff about how to most effectively communicate with people. We observed staff using these methods to effectively communicate with people during our assessment visit.

The provider planned and delivered people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them. They did this in line with legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards.

People’s needs around their eating and drinking had been assessed. The provider’s action plan included ensuring everyone had the texture of the food and drink they ate recorded in their care notes. This is based on the International Dysphagia Diet Standardisation Initiative (IDDSI) framework. At lunchtime people were encouraged to eat their meals. A person living with dementia repeatedly got up and walked around. When a staff member sat next to them, the person enjoyed their company and sat talking with them and eating their meal for the duration of lunchtime. People who were able to eat independently were supported to do so with the use of aids and adaptations where needed.

Kitchen staff were knowledgeable about people’s needs and preferences and sought feedback from them about their meal experience. This was so they could adjust the menu options accordingly. Relatives told us that drinks were placed within people’s reach so they were accessible. Staff carried out a check during our visit to make sure people had enough to drink. People and relatives were complimentary about the choice and quality of food provided. A relative told us, “The food looks lovely, and my mum has actually put some weight on since she's been in there which is really good."

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people.

The service worked with a wide range of health and care professionals including doctors, community nurses, dementia specialists and speech and language therapists. We observed a very positive discussion between the management team and a health care professional during our assessment. The health care professional commented on how the management team were quick to make a referral and that they acted on what was asked of them. They described the management team as ‘responsive’. We received positive feedback from another health care professional. They told us, “The team and I have good relationships with the management and staff. If we have raised any concerns they work with us to provide the patient with the best outcome."

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing. Staff supported people to live healthier lives.

Staff recorded information about people’s health needs and medical appointments which was easily accessible, in order to monitor and ensure people’s health needs met. For example, there was clear guidance for staff about how to recognise if someone with diabetes had too little or too much sugar in their body and the action they should take.

During the assessment people were taking part in an activity which involved armchair games and exercises. This activity took place on a regular basis to help people to take part in exercise that was enjoyable.

When there were concerns about people’s health, referrals were made to the appropriate health care professionals. A health care professional told us, “The managers will escalate any concerns they have in a timely manner and refer patients who need our input.” A relative said, “They are really good in recognising changes in her health."

There had been improvements in how the provider monitored people’s care and treatment but further improvements were needed to ensure that outcomes were consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Care plans did not detail always detail each person’s current care and support needs. The provider told us before the assessment that they had instigated the ‘resident of the day’ framework. This involves all staff, including housekeeping and catering staff focusing on the individual needs of the person. This is to ensure their care plan is reviewed and updated to reflect any changing needs, interests, or aspirations. However, this effective way of monitoring people’s outcomes was not in place at the time of our assessment visit.

The recording of care interventions had improved so information about people’s care and treatment was easier to access in a timely manner. When an incident or accident occurred a record was made of the action staff took to help keep people safe and learn lessons so there was less chance of the same thing happening again.

Staff understood the importance of gaining people’s consent and respected this when delivering person-centred care and treatment. [MS1]

People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found that staff had been trained in the principles of MCA. They gained people’s consent before offering any support or assistance such as helping them to mobilise or eat.

The service managed DoLS by making and monitoring applications and keeping a record of these and any associated conditions. However, these were not always detailed in people’s care plans to ensure staff were aware. There was inconsistency in best interest meetings taking place where people had been assessed as lacking the capacity to make a specific decision. The service’s action plan included shortfalls in this area where there was a lack of information about the type of decisions people could make and how they were supported in their best interest.

Assessments included specific decisions about whether people could understand, retain and weigh up the information and communicate their decision. To help people understand information this had been presented in a different format, such as photographs. Some people had declined medical checks and medicines. In these circumstances the service had worked closely with families and medical professionals in the best interest of the person within the principles of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA).