Aaron Court 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 inadequate. 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 58 (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.

Staff monitored people's health needs and used recognised assessment tools, such as the Malnutrition Universal Screening Tool (MUST), to identify and manage risks. However, records needed to be more robust and consistent. For example, where a person was receiving treatment from district nurses for skin damage, their care plan did not contain sufficient guidance for care staff or the measures needed to prevent further deterioration.

The home manager was aware of the areas requiring improvement and they were taking action to strengthen care planning, recording, and oversight.

The provider did not always plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them, including what was important and mattered to them.

The provider was working to improve the quality of care delivered to people. Care plans were generally comprehensive and contained personalised information about people's care and support needs. Relatives told us they were involved in care planning and were kept informed of any changes to their family member's care. Whilst care plans had improved, some inaccurate and conflicting information remained, which the manager acknowledged was an area they were continuing to work on.

Care plans included guidance on repositioning people to reduce the risk of pressure damage. However, repositioning records were not always completed in line with the required frequency. The manager was already working with staff to improve timely recording.

People were generally happy with the food available and had access to drinks and snacks. Kitchen staff prepared modified and specialist diets, and systems had been introduced to help ensure people received food and drinks of the correct consistency. We observed positive mealtime interactions, including staff showing people meal options to support informed choice. However, accurate record keeping remained an area for improvement. For example, information in a person’s care plan differed to records kept in the kitchen, this increased the risk that food could be prepared to an incorrect consistency.

The provider worked well across teams and services to support people. They made sure people only needed to tell their story once by sharing their assessment of needs when people moved between different services.

Staff worked closely with a range of healthcare professionals, including the local GP practice, with whom they met weekly to review people's health needs. They also worked with social care colleagues, and feedback from the local authority showed the provider had responded positively to an improvement action plan.

Staff told us improvements had been made and said the team worked well together. They said they were kept informed through regular meetings. They also described the use of “Safety pauses" to ensure important information was highlighted, such as people who had specific dietary requirements.

The provider supported people to manage their health and wellbeing to maximise their independence, choice and control. Staff supported people to live healthier lives and where possible, reduce their future needs for care and support.

Care plans included information about people’s healthcare needs and provided guidance to staff. Staff made referrals to health professionals where required, such as to dieticians, speech and language therapists and district nurses.

Relatives shared examples of how staff worked with others to support people’s health needs. They told us, “They (staff) have been in touch with the Parkinson’s team, they’ve looked at (relative’s) diet and discussed decisions in his best interests” and “They have found a drug regime that works, they have spoken to mental health nurses.”

The provider routinely monitored people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They were working towards ensuring outcomes were positive and consistent, and that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves.

Staff undertook monthly reviews of people’s care to ensure their needs continued to be met. The management team had made recent changes to this process and there was a focus on ensuring people and relatives were always involved in these reviews. This approach was still being embedded. Overall, relatives told us they were kept updated and gave examples of positive outcomes for people.

Staff used the electronic recording system to help ensure people’s clinical needs were being met, this helped to monitor the care provided. However, a concern relating to staff not following procedures robustly when a person’s health deteriorated, was under review. The home manager had put some extra steps in place to strengthen processes, which needed to be fully embedded.

The provider did not always tell people about their rights around consent and did not always respect their rights when delivering care and treatment.

Staff usually asked people for their consent before providing care. However, there were gaps in records relating to the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). The MCA is a legal framework that supports people to make their own decisions wherever possible. If someone is unable to make a decision for themselves, any decision made on their behalf must be in their best interests and restrict their freedom as little as possible.

Staff had completed mental capacity assessments and recorded best interest decisions in some cases. However, these had not always been undertaken when needed, for example when a sensor mat was used to monitor a person's movements. The provider was aware these needed further improvement and had included this as part of their action plan. Work to address this was underway.

The home manager had reviewed any restrictions placed on people and made Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) applications where required. They were also aware of recent legal changes following a court ruling and the impact these changes may have on practice.