Aquarius Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive - this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Requires Improvement. At this assessment the rating has remained Requires Improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

The provider was previously in breach of the legal regulation in relation to person centred care. Improvements were not found at this assessment, and the provider remained in breach of this regulation.

This service scored 57 (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 did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People were not always at the centre of their care as care planning had not always involved people and those important to them. People told us they had not been involved in developing their care plans. The service user guide stated that people’s specialist interests and hobbies would be discussed during their assessment. However, people’s care plans lacked important information about their history, interests, religious and cultural needs. As people’s interests had not always been recorded this information was unavailable to structure an activities programme. However, there were no opportunities for stimulation for people who did not enjoy group activities or spent their time in bed. Although the management team had identified that the employment of an activities co-ordinator would benefit people’s outcomes, they were not currently recruiting to the role. The service user guide inaccurately stated that the home provided the daily sparkle newspaper, singing with local children and shopping days out. People told us when external entertainers visited these activities were enjoyable. One person told us “The staff know how much I like this singer, so they book her as regularly as possible.” Another person told us how much she enjoyed seeing the Shetland ponies when they visited the service. We observed a group of people enjoying and engaging in a group armchair exercise activity.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

We observed some positive practice with staff responding to people’s need with kindness and compassion. Staff were courteous and patient with people, listening and respecting their personal choices, and were at eye level speaking warmly and respectfully with people.

Staff told us there was continuity of support for people living at the service. Many staff had worked at the service for a long period of time. The management team told us that agency staff were used minimally when there had been absences.

Healthcare professionals gave us positive feedback about the service. Staff supported people well and took timely and appropriate action when people’s health needs changed. For example, one health care professional told us, “When I have visited the premises, the staff use clear, simple language, and are calm and reassuring, allowing time for the residents to understand and respond.”

The provider did not always supply appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs. Since 2016 all organisations that provide publicly funded adult social care are legally required to follow the Accessible Information Standard. This tells organisations what they must do to help ensure people with a disability, or sensory loss get information in a way they can understand it. The manager told us, “We don’t currently have anyone with this need, but we can convert information in a story book format, braille, larger print, alternative languages, etc.” However, the service provided care for people living with dementia and people with a learning disability who could benefit from information provided in a more visual format. Consideration had not been given to finding out if people would benefit from information in a different format, such as in an easy read format to help understand their care plan. The provider told us after the last inspection they would display the complaints policy in an easy read version, but this had not occurred. We observed there was some signage to help people navigate around the service. Doors to people’s rooms were different colours and were personalised on the outside with their name and a photograph. Some had a garland or their favourite football team logo. Communal areas such as bathrooms, the dining room and the conservatory were signposted with pictures as well as words.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. There were limited formal processes to listen and involve people who used the service. There were family meetings, but there were no residents’ meetings or surveys of people and relatives so that people’s views could be gained and acted on. Therefore, the provider was not doing all that it could to be assured it was operating according to people’s needs. The provider had a complaints procedure. People told us they were confident to speak up if they needed to. A person told us, “I will speak my mind if I need to.” All relatives we spoke with said they have never had cause to complain about anything but felt confident that anything they may raise would be acted on promptly.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People were supported with medical appointments and routine, follow-up appointments. People told us they had access to health care professionals both inside and outside of the service.

There were processes in place to ensure that people could receive care, support and treatment when they needed it. The district nurses visited the service twice daily and the paramedic link visited weekly to undertake diabetic and dementia reviews. Staff had a confident working relationship with all the health care professionals who visited the service.

Health care professionals told us staff at the service were good at escalating concerns in health deterioration or changes in someone’s medical condition to ensure that timely action was taken.

Staff and leaders did not always actively listen to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes. This meant people’s care was not always tailored in response to this.

There was not always equity in experience. Right support, right care, right culture (RSRCRC) applies to services for people with autism or people with a learning disability to ensure they receive the respect, equality, dignity, choices, independence and good access to local amenities that most people take for granted . However, the manager was not aware of RSRCRC and therefore had not evaluated the service to ensure these principles had been met for people with autism or people with a learning disability.

People told us they were supported to receive care in their preferred way. One person told us, “I have a shower every morning without fail.” Another person said, “They help me wash my hair, but I like to brush it myself.”

A relative told us, “He likes to vape occasionally, and they facilitate this for him. For a long time in his life, before coming here, we had lost him. But with the care he receives here, I feel we have been given a second chance to know our brother again.” Another relative told us, “He is a very sociable person, and they make time to talk with him and give him little jobs around the home like laying the table.”

People were not always supported to prepare for important life changes, so they could make plans in good time about their future, including at the end of their life. There was inconsistency in the detail of information about how people would like to be cared for if they became unwell or at the end of their lives. Some people had information about how they would like to be cared for at the end of their life. However, for other people there was no evidence that they had been asked about their choices and decisions because no information had been recorded. This lack of guidance meant people might not be cared for according to their preferences.

A health professional had complimented the service on recognising that a person’s health with deteriorating and so ensuring they could spend their last moments surrounded by their family members.

For people with a learning disability there was a lack of information about how they were supported to plan for their future by setting goals based on their dreams and aspirations. People had general long-term goals such as gaining their independence. However, these goals had not been broken down into smaller steps needed to achieve their long-term goals.