- Care home
Aaron House
Assessment report published 22 September 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
About the service
The service is a care home and can accommodate a maximum of 25 people. At the time of our inspection there were 19 people living in Aaron House.
Who the service is for
The service supports older people and people living with dementia.
Key findings
We carried out this assessment on 17 August 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.
There was a learning culture in the service where accidents and incidents were reviewed and analysed to identify lessons learned and opportunities for continuous service improvement. Policies and processes were in place to keep people safe. Where people lacked capacity decisions were made in their best interest in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. 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 members of staff and the management team worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives. People’s care needs were assessed appropriately and mitigations to reduce risk were put in place. Care plans were reviewed regularly. The care environment was safe and regular checks on equipment, water temperature and gas and electric services were completed. Members of staff were deployed effectively and there were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s care and support needs. Members of staff were supported by the management team, and they had completed a comprehensive range of training courses specific to their roles and responsibilities. Medicines were managed, on the whole, safely. We did, however, identify some areas for improvement which we discussed with the management team. Immediate action was taken which mitigated risk to people. Learning was identified and updated processes were put in place following our site visit. The learning outcomes from this inspection were shared across the provider’s group of services.
People’s needs were assessed effectively and key workers carried out regular reviews. People had access to regular drinks and snacks. Where people had additional needs linked to nutrition and hydration, there were monitoring processes in place which ensured action was taken if people were not eating or drinking sufficiently. People had access to regular visits from their local GP and other health and care professionals. People were given information about consenting to care and support in the care home. This was recorded in their care plan. Where people lacked capacity to make informed decisions, the provider followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and made decisions which were in people's best interests and ensured they had maximum freedom and choice.
Members of staff were kind and caring. People who were independent were supported to maintain their independence and to have choice and control about their care and support. We observed people making choices throughout our visit to the service. Some people chose to eat their meals in the dining room and others chose to eat in their rooms or in the lounge.
Care and support was person-centred and specific to each person. Care plans had person-centred information which enabled members of staff to provide care in line with people’s personal preferences. A complaints procedure was in place, and people were encouraged to give their feedback about the service. People received equitable support from members of staff. People did not experience any barriers to care and support.
There was a positive culture of support in the care home. Members of staff were supportive of the people who lived in Aaron House and of each other. There were good systems of governance throughout the service which enabled the registered manager and the management team to maintain a good quality service with a focus on continuous improvement. The provider and the management team were committed to learning and improvement. We saw evidence of this in practice when we highlighted some areas for improvement in relation to management of medications. Immediate action was taken and lessons learned were shared across the provider’s group of services.
People's experience of this service
We spoke with a range of people who lived in Aaron House and relatives who were visiting people. The dining room was clean, and white cloths were on the tables with an additional floral throw. Each had sauces and seasonings and were set for lunch. One of the people who lived in Aaron House helped with setting the tables. We observed members of staff were friendly and caring in their interactions with people. One staff member was very gentle with a person with sensory impairments and allowed them to feel her face. Members of staff talked to people whilst they were having lunch. They discussed pictures on the wall, and the different jobs people had previously.
People told us they felt safe in Aaron House. One person said, “I think I am safe. I feel ok.” They told us they were able to speak up if they felt unsafe or were worried about anything. People told us they had a buzzer in their room they could access but not many people had needed to use it. Some people also had a sensor mat under their bed which alerted members of staff if people got up in the night. One person chose to lock his room at night but asked members of staff to check on them twice a night. It was confirmed members of staff carried out these checks in line with the person’s preference. Rooms were clean and people’s laundry was done the same day without delay. One person told us, “The cleaning is spotless. It is well-regulated and it is very good.” People told us they received their medication safely. One person said, “Every day I have tablets morning and night. The staff give me to them.”
People told us they could access health professionals and the GP visited weekly. Some people said there some activities they were not interested in, but they were taken out by members of staff. Everyone told us they were free to make their own decisions. One person told us, “The GP comes every Monday. If you wish to see him, you tell [the registered manager] who is very good.”
People said members of staff were kind and caring and there we saw evidence of this on the day of inspection. Dignified care was provided when bathing and changing beds. People told us they had visitors and some people were taken out into the local community. One person told us they had difficulty understanding a member of staff but informed us they were very kind and caring. One person said, “[Members of staff] are very caring. This morning they stripped the bed and have taken the sheets to be washed. They gave me help when I needed it.” Another person told us, “I am sure [members of staff] are well trained.”
People told us a member of staff accompanied them to appointments. One person said, “There is always someone who goes with you.” There were mixed views about resident meetings, and a person said they would like to be kept more informed. Some people told us they had made a complaint in the past and their concerns had been dealt with appropriately. One person told us, “[Members of staff] keep me informed. We are asked about the food the day before. The food is good.” Another person told us, “I don’t like activities. I watch TV and the staff take me into town in a taxi.”
People told us Aaron House was good and members staff were kind and caring and always there for them. People told us they would recommend the care home to others. People said the registered manager and the deputy manager were approachable and complemented each other. One person said, “[The registered manager] manages the team well.”