CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Aadamson House Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found sufficient staffing, thorough recruitment checks, safe medicines administration, safeguarding arrangements and systems for assessing and learning from risks. Infection prevention measures and visiting arrangements were also found to be suitable.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and care records were regularly reviewed. Staff had training and supervision, and people received support with food, drink, healthcare and lawful decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This key question was not inspected during this focused visit. Its previous rating was used when calculating the overall rating.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found auditing systems, an open management approach and a positive culture. People, relatives and staff were encouraged to give their views, and the home worked with health and social care professionals.
What inspectors found, May 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and well-managed care, with no evidence that people were at risk of harm.
This was an unannounced focused inspection. Inspectors visited from 25 to 28 April 2023, spoke with people, a relative, staff and the management team, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and maintenance records.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines arrangements, suitable risk assessments, appropriate training, support with food and healthcare, and systems for checking quality.
The inspection was prompted by concerns about management, quality checks, the environment and people's care needs. Inspectors found no evidence that people were at risk of harm. Caring and Responsive were not inspected, so the overall rating also used ratings from the previous inspection.
Safe medicines
Medicines were given safely and on time. Records and audits were used to identify and act on problems.
“People received their medication safely and at the right time.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found sufficient staff on duty throughout the 24-hour period. Recruitment checks and induction arrangements were also in place.
“Sufficient numbers of staff were on duty to support people's care and social needs and promote their independence.” from the report
Food and choice
People had regular meals, snacks and drinks, with choices available. The home had systems to reduce the risk of malnutrition.
“People were provided with regular meals and snacks with choices.” from the report
Supportive management
People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the management team. The home used meetings, surveys and complaints processes to gather views.
“There was a positive culture at Aadamson House and comments we received confirmed this.” from the report
Provider information was not submitted
minorThe provider did not complete the required annual information return for CQC. The report does not say this caused harm or led to enforcement action.
“The provider did not complete the required Provider Information Return (PIR).” from the report
- 01How do you check that medicines continue to be given safely and on time?
- 02How do you decide whether staffing levels are sufficient for my relative's care and social needs?
- 03What refurbishment work is still planned, and how will it affect residents?
- 04How do you monitor my relative's food and drink intake and respond if there is a risk of malnutrition?
- 05What was the previous rating for Caring and Responsive, and when will those areas next be inspected?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and the overall rating used ratings from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 May 2023 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Aadamson House Care Home rated Good; inspectors found safe care and clear improvements since the previous Requires Improvement rating, although some training and management arrangements were still developing.
An unannounced inspection took place on 09 March 2022. One inspector spoke with six people living at the home, four staff members, the cook and one relative. The inspector observed care, reviewed records and checked the building and infection controls.
People told inspectors they felt safe. Staff were available, medicines were managed safely and risks were assessed. The home was clean and followed COVID-19 infection control guidance. People received support with healthcare, food, drinks and contact with relatives.
The overall rating was Good. Safe, Effective and Well-led were each rated Good. Caring and Responsive were not given a new rating in this inspection. The previous rating was Requires Improvement, and the report says the home was no longer in breach of regulations.
People felt safe
People said they felt safe with staff. Inspectors found effective safeguarding procedures and staff who understood how to report concerns.
“People told us they felt safe and protected from the risk of abuse and or neglect.” from the report
Safe medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were given as prescribed. Regular audits were used to check medicines and address problems.
“Medicines were managed safely. People received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Choice and consent
The home had improved how it assessed capacity and sought consent. People were offered choice and supported in the least restrictive way.
“People were now supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff consistently supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests” from the report
Person-centred care
Care plans reflected people's needs and preferences. People and staff described a positive, caring environment.
“People received person centre care and support. Plans of care we saw were well written, person-centred documents.” from the report
Manager registration in progress
minorThe manager had applied to register with CQC, but registration had not been completed when inspectors visited.
“However, the manager in place was in the process of being registered by (CQC) and an application had been submitted.” from the report
Some training was overdue
minorInspectors found that some staff were behind in some areas of training. The home said updated courses were available and that the pandemic had affected delivery.
“We noted some staff members were behind in some areas of training but there was good compliance with training and updated training courses were made available.” from the report
Care audit gaps
minorAudits had identified gaps in some people's care and treatment records. The home made improvements where needed, but this is an area worth checking.
“We found audits identified gaps in relation to some people's care and treatment and made improvements where necessary.” from the report
- 01Has the manager now been registered with CQC, and if not, what is the current position?
- 02Which staff training areas were behind at the inspection, and have all required updates now been completed?
- 03How do you check that gaps found by care audits are corrected and stay corrected?
- 04How will you keep my relative's care records up to date, including when their needs or choices change?
This was a focused inspection that gave new ratings for Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and were not given new ratings in this report. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 March 2022 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Aadamson House Care Home
4 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Good.
- May 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2022Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2021Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2020InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- July 2019
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 5 July 2019.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
85 live-in carers within about an hour of Lancashire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 78 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She understands the needs of an elderly person in the early stages of dementia and has treated my mother with great kindness and skill.”
“Thanks to Tracy, Dad was always immaculately dressed and clean, his meals were all home cooked and nutritionally well balanced and his home was always kept really clean and tidy.”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.