You are here

Archived: Aran Court Care Centre Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Requires improvement

Updated 10 January 2017

This inspection took place on 14 and 24 November 2016 and was unannounced.

We last carried out a full inspection of this service on 02 September 2015 when we identified that improvements were needed in two of the questions we ask; Is the service safe and Is the service well led. We carried out a focussed inspection on 09 March 2016 following a serious incident in the home to assure ourselves that people were safe and following that inspection we felt assured that people were safe. At this inspection we checked that the required improvements had been made and maintained. We saw that although some improvements had been there were issues that that meant that further improvements were needed to ensure that people received good quality care.

Aran Court Care Centre provides nursing and personal care to up to 86 people for reasons of frailty, physical disability, sensory impairment and mental health disorder.

The registered provider is required as part of their conditions of registration to have a registered manager in post. At the time of or inspection there was a registered manager in post but they had only been in post for a few weeks. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

We saw that some improvements were needed to the management of medicines to ensure that people received their medicines as prescribed. We identified this as a breach of regulation.

During our inspection some people and their relatives and staff expressed their concerns regarding the staffing levels in the home and the high dependency on agency staff. People felt that on occasions there were insufficient staff available to meet people’s needs. The provider had assessed the number of staff needed to meet people’s needs but due to the dependency on agency staff to meet the required numbers because of a high turnover of staff people were unhappy with the number of different people in the home who did not know their needs. Some efforts were being made to meet the social needs of people but these were limited as there were no specific staff with responsibility for this area of need.

People’s needs were met but care provided to people was generally task orientated rather than person centred. For example, staff completed basic tasks for people such as assisting with personal care and ensured that they received pressure relieving equipment to prevent skin damage. However, staff did not always ensure that drinks and emergency buzzers were always accessible to people to ensure that their hydration levels were maintained and they were able to summon assistance if they needed it. Information received during and after our inspection showed that people’s continence needs were not always being adequately met.

People received food and drink that met their nutritional needs but mealtimes were not always a pleasant experience and well managed, particularly for people living with dementia.

Staff were supported to provide care to people through the provision of training, supervision and through meetings and handovers.

Systems were in place to listen to the views of people and take actions to address the issues raised through complaints, surveys and meetings. The quality of the service was monitored but the systems had not always identified areas for improvement and plans put in place to monitor and sustain improvements.

Systems were in place to ensure that people were given choices and consent obtained for the care and treatment they received.

You can see what action we told the provider to take at the back of the full version of the report

Inspection areas

Safe

Requires improvement

Updated 10 January 2017

The service was not consistently safe.

People were protected from abuse because staff were able to recognise the signs of abuse and able to raise any concerns they had.

Systems were in place to identify and manage risks associated with people�s care.

There was not a stable staff team in place so that people received continuity of care.

People generally received their medicines as prescribed but some improvements were needed to the management of medicines.

Effective

Requires improvement

Updated 10 January 2017

The service was not consistently effective.

People received care to meet their day to day needs and were encouraged to be involved in making decisions about their care. Were needed staff would make decision in their best interest.

Systems were in place to ensure that people�s liberty was not restricted without the appropriate authorisations.

People�s dietary needs were met but mealtimes could be better managed to offer a safer and more social event.

People were able to receive medical attention when needed.

Caring

Requires improvement

Updated 10 January 2017

The service was not always caring.

People were complimentary about most staff but there were occasions when people felt staffs attitude and language was not always caring.

People�s privacy and dignity was not always promoted by staff on behalf of people with limited abilities to raise issues.

People were supported to maintain their independence.

Responsive

Requires improvement

Updated 10 January 2017

The service was not always responsive.

People did not always receive care that was personalised to meet their needs.

People were able to raise concerns and express their views about the service.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 10 January 2017

The service was not consistently well led.

There had been a change in registered manager and staff felt that during this period there had been a lack of support and staff did not feel confident that their views and concerns were being listened.

There were some audits being undertaken and quality measures being recorded but the systems were not robust enough to identify the actions to be taken and how they were being monitored to ensure improvements were made and sustained.