You are here

Aslockton Hall Nursing & Residential Home Requires improvement

The provider of this service changed - see old profile


Inspection carried out on 12 August 2020

During an inspection looking at part of the service

About the service

Aslockton Hall Nursing & Residential Home is a residential and nursing home providing personal and nursing care to 29 people aged 65 and over at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 62 people in one adapted building which has two floors.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Medicines were not always stored safely, and some people did not have guidance for their “as required” medicines for staff to follow. Three people were not given their medicine at the correct time in accordance with their prescriptions.

There were not always sufficient staff available to meet people’s needs. People, relatives and staff had mixed views about the availability of staff. There were times during the day where staff were not able to meet people’s needs in a timely manner. The issues with staffing levels also impacted on how frequently some people had their care plans and risk assessments reviewed.

People were not consistently protected from the risks associated with acquired infections. Staff did not always use personal protective equipment correctly, and people shared the slings used for hoisting them. Shared equipment like this increases the risk of infection being transferred from one person to another. The registered manager took immediate action to address these issues.

Audits of the quality of care were not always effective at identifying issues. There was a plan for improving the quality of the service, but neither the audits or the plan had been effective in identifying the issues we found on this inspection. There were areas of staff training that were not up to date. Feedback from the local authority quality monitoring audit had not always been acted on.

The registered manager had ensured that people and staff had timely access to testing for COVID-19. The provider had also updated their policies and risk assessments to take into account the specific risks posed by COVID-19.

People felt they were cared for safely, and relatives felt their family members were safe living at the service. Staff understood how to recognise and report concerns or abuse. Staff received training in safeguarding and felt confident to raise concerns about the people they cared for. People’s needs were assessed, and any risks associated with their health conditions documented. Risks associated with the service environment were assessed and mitigated. Accidents and incidents were reviewed and monitored each month to identify trends and to prevent re-occurrences.

People and relatives felt able to speak up about the quality of care and make suggestions for improvement and were confident the registered manager would take action. Staff said they felt part of a team and were well supported by their colleagues and the registered manager.

The registered manager and staff team worked with external health and social care professionals to improve people’s care and quality of life.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at

Rating at last inspection and update

The last rating for this service under the previous provider was requires improvement (published on 6 April 2018) and there were three breaches of regulations. The provider completed an action plan after the last inspection to show what they would do and by when to improve. Since the last inspection, published April 2018, the provider changed legal entity.

The service remains rated requires improvement. This service has been rated requires improvement for the last three consecutive inspections. At this inspection enough improvement had not been made and the provider was still in breach of regulations.

Why we inspected

The inspection was prompted in part due to concerns received about unsafe care practices. The concerns were shared with the local authority, who carried out four safeguarding investigations. The local authority concluded that one of the concerns was not substantiated, and their