Aaron Grange Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last inspection this key question was rated good. During this inspection this key question has remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

For some people, important personal information was missing, inconsistent or not updated. For some people with diabetes there was no separate diabetes plan, and existing documentation did not describe required monitoring, expected ranges or actions for high or low readings, or how a person’s diabetes specifically affects them.

Staff described people’s likes, preferences and routines during conversations with us. However, this level of personalised understanding was not captured consistently in documentation.

Some reviews were overdue, meaning information was not reliable for new or temporary staff. The provider has since been responsive to our feedback and has taken action to address these concerns.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

Staff ensured people had access to external health professionals such as district nurses, GPs and dieticians when concerns were identified. Care plans contained input from professionals.

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

Staff were confident in explaining daily routines and providing reassurance.

Staff demonstrated they gained consent and checked understanding, including for people living with dementia, but these approaches were not consistently documented. The provider had started work to improve this, and updated care plans were clearer about people’s communication needs and how staff should approach them.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

Complaints information was visible, and people told us they knew how to raise concerns if they needed to. Complaint responses we reviewed had been completed in line with the provider’s policy and within expected timescales.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

Staff ensured people with higher dependences or additional needs, such as those living with dementia or diabetes, were supported to access the right care at the right time.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

Feedback from people, professionals and staff indicated that people’s basic care needs were being met consistently.

People were supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

End‑of‑life care plans were detailed and included direction from district nurses. Staff described how they supported families and maintained people’s comfort.