Aire View 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 Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement.This meant the effectiveness of people’s care, treatment and support did not always achieve good outcomes or was inconsistent.

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 did not always make sure people’s care and treatment were effective because they did not always check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. We found that effective systems were not always in place to assess, monitor and mitigate risks to people. We identified some people’s needs were not met in respect of management of skin integrity, personal hygiene and nutrition and hydration. This put people at risk of being harmed and their health and wellbeing deteriorating. Some risk assessments and care plans required further detail. Lack of guidance for staff in care records placed people at risk of harm or injury. For example, some people’s care plans, and risk assessments were not in detail for managing skin integrity when there was a risk of pressure injury. Some people who had recent weight loss had been referred to the GP, however, did not have enough detail in their care plans for staff to support this risk.

We did not look at Delivering evidence-based care and treatment during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Effective.

The provider did not always work well across teams and services to support people. We found evidence that one person required an assessment with a Speech and Language Therapist (SALT) which had not been followed up by staff following a chocking incident. We received mixed feedback from people when we asked how well the home works across teams and services. Some comments included, “[My relative was] supposed to have seen someone from the incontinence team. They are supposed to have come, but none of the staff saw them”, “Yes, they have a doctor who comes in on certain days. If you ask, they will put you on the list and the doctor will see you” and “I need my toes nails cutting. They used to have someone about to come and do nails. I think they are waiting for police checks.”

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.

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. The manager told us that they routinely monitored people’s care and treatment. However, some risk assessments and records of care required further detail. Some records of care provided were not consistent with their care plan. For example, repositioning charts had gaps longer than stated in the person’s care plan, placing them at risk of harm or injury. One person with weight loss did not have a care plan or risk assessment to support this risk. Other people who were also at risk due to recent weight loss, did not always have their food and fluid recorded or monitored.

he provider told people about their rights around consent and respected these when delivering person-centred care and treatment. Processes were in place to ensure care and treatment was provided with the consent of the relevant person. Mental Capacity Assessments (MCA) and best interest decisions were in place for some people who lacked capacity to make a particular decision. A Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) tracker was in place and updated. One person told us, “I don’t feel clamped down here. There are no restrictions. I feel like I can walk around, which is important to me. They don’t come in and take over, they do reassure me.”