Archived: Aaron Manor

Updated 24 October 2019

The inspection

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (the Act) as part of our regulatory functions. We checked whether the provider was meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Act. We looked at the overall quality of the service and provided a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

Inspection team

The inspection team consisted of one inspector.

Service and service type

Aaron Manor 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.

Notice of inspection

This inspection was unannounced.

What we did before the inspection

Before the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service and the service provider, including the previous inspection report. The registered provider had completed a Provider Information Return (PIR). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We looked at notifications and any safeguarding alerts we had received for this service. Notifications are information about important events the service is required to send us by law.

As part of the inspection we reviewed the information we held about the service. We looked at previous inspection reports and other information about the service including notifications. Statutory notifications are changes or events that occur at the service which the provider has a legal duty to inform us about. We used the information the provider sent us in the provider information return. This is information providers are required to send us with key information about their service, what they do well, and improvements they plan to make. This information helps support our inspections. We used all of this information to plan our inspection.

During the inspection-

We looked around the service and met with all of people there at the time. As some people were unable to fully communicate with us, we used the Short Observational Framework for Inspection (SOFI). SOFI is a way of observing care to help us understand the experience of people who could not talk with us. We spoke with 10 people in more detail to understand their views and experiences of the service and we observed how staff supported people. We spoke with the registered manager, registered provider, senior care worker and six other members of staff.

We reviewed the care records of five people who were using the service at the time of the inspection and a range of other documents. For example, medicine records, four staff recruitment files; staff training records and records relating to the management of the service.

After the inspection

We continued to seek clarification from the registered manager to validate evidence found. We looked at training data, action plans, audits and quality assurance records. We spoke with two professionals who regularly visit the service.

Updated 24 October 2019

About the service:

Aaron Manor is registered to provide accommodation and support for up to 21 people. There were 16 people living in the service when we visited. People cared for were mainly older people who were living with a range of care needs, including arthritis, diabetes and heart conditions. Some people were also living with dementia. Most people needed support with their personal care, eating, drinking or mobility. Accommodation was provided over two floors.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Although regular quality audits were completed to manage oversight of the service, we found improvements were needed for the documentation that supports best interest decisions and for medicine record keeping. For both these concerns, we considered the risk and impact on people to be mitigated during the inspection process. The registered manager acknowledged these were areas for improvement and immediately took steps to rectify these shortfalls.

People received safe care and support by staff who had been appropriately recruited, trained to recognise signs of abuse or risk and understood what to do to safely support people. People were supported to take positive risks, to ensure they had as much choice and control of their lives as possible. We observed medicines being given safely to people by suitably trained and knowledgeable staff, who had been assessed as competent.

Staff had all received training to meet people’s specific needs. During induction, they got to know people and their needs well. One staff member said, “It’s really lovely here, everyone works as a team to make sure we support people in the safest and best way. We got lots of training to do this.” People’s nutritional and health needs were consistently met with involvement from a variety of health and social care professionals.

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.

Everyone we spoke to was consistent in their views that staff were kind, caring and supportive. One visitor said, “Very kind and polite staff, the atmosphere is good, I feel welcomed every time I visit.” People were relaxed, comfortable and happy in the company of staff. People’s independence was considered important by all staff and their privacy and dignity was promoted.

Staff were committed to delivering care in a person-centred way based on people's preferences and wishes.

There was a stable staff team who were knowledgeable about the people they supported and had built

trusting and meaningful relationships with them. Activities were tailor-made to people’s preferences and interests. People were encouraged to go out and form relationships with family and members of the community. Staff knew people’s communication needs well and we observed them using a variety of tools, such as method sign language, pictures and objects of reference, to gain their views.

People were involved in their care planning. End of life care planning and documentation guided staff in providing care at this important stage of people’s lives. End of life care was delivered empathetically and with respect and dignity.

People, their relatives and health care professionals had the opportunity to share their views about the service. Complaints made by people or their relatives were taken seriously and thoroughly investigated.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection:

Good. (Report published on 14 January 2017)

Why we inspected:

The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about staffing deployment, risk of falls and medicine management. A decision was made for us to inspect and examine those risks.

Whilst the overall rating has remained Good, we have found evidence that the provider needs to make some improvements. Please see the well-led section of this full report.

Follow up:

We will continue to monitor intelligence we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If any concerning information is received, we may inspect sooner.