Aaron Court Care Home

Ratings

• Overall

  Inadequate

• Safe

  Inadequate

• Effective

  Inadequate

• Caring

  Inadequate

• Responsive

  Inadequate

• Well-led

  Inadequate

Our view of the service

Date of Assessment: 18 March 2025 to 7 April 2025. The service is a residential and nursing home providing support to older adults living with dementia and disabilities. At the time of CQC’s assessment 60 people lived in the home.  This was an unannounced, responsive assessment, prompted by concerns reported to CQC. There was insufficient oversight regarding concerns, accidents, and incidents. The provider did not adequately manage risks. Risk to people's health and safety was not always assessed or mitigated. Medication was not always administered safely to individuals. People were not consistently treated with kindness, respect, and dignity, as care often focused on tasks. The provider failed to foster a culture that encouraged positive outcomes for people. Governance systems and audits were ineffective in recognising or addressing areas in need of improvement. There was limited access to activities, particularly for people with more complex needs, which increased the risk of social isolation. The provider lacked the systems and oversight required to ensure people consistently received safe, respectful, and person-centred care.  At the time of our assessment, the provider had introduced a senior management team and a new interim home manager to provide intensive support and oversight at the service, and an action plan was in place following concerns being raised by CQC and partner agencies.

During the assessment, we identified 6 breaches of the legal regulations in relation to person centred care, dignity and respect, need for consent, safe care and treatment, good governance and staffing. This service has been placed in special measures. The purpose of special measures is to ensure services providing inadequate care make significant improvements. Special measures provide a framework within which we use our enforcement powers in response to inadequate care and provide a timeframe within which providers must improve the quality of the care they provide. In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded.  

People's experience of this service

While some people told us they felt safe and supported by kind and caring staff, most people described inconsistent and, at times, unsafe care. Several people reported delays in receiving help, unanswered call bells, and support with personal care not being provided. These concerns were echoed by relatives, who raised significant issues around safety, staffing, communication, and leadership. Relatives described basic care being missed, poor nutritional support, and unmonitored weight loss. There were reports of unsafe practices, including injuries, unexplained bruising, and inappropriate administration of medication. Communication was frequently reported as poor. Families said they were not informed of key events such as falls or involved in decisions about care. Many described difficulties reaching the home by telephone and a lack of follow-up when concerns were raised with the registered manager. While some relatives praised individual staff members for their compassion, this was not consistently experienced. Most people and relatives we spoke with raised ongoing issues about staffing levels, continuity, and staff skill mix. Concerns were raised about people’s dignity. Relatives described people left in nightwear during the day, not supported with food or fluids, or left without engagement for long periods. Hygiene and cleanliness issues were reported, including soiled bedding and unpleasant odours. The environment was not always supportive of people’s emotional wellbeing. Some people were unable to communicate verbally with us. We therefore carried out a short observational framework for inspectors (SOFI) to observe people’s experience of care. This showed us staff did not always interact with people other than when carrying out tasks.