CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Aahana House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors looked at infection prevention and control only. They found the home was mostly meeting the relevant safety measures, but social distancing was difficult because of the layout and there were concerns about communication and advice about leaving the home.
- Effective?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, January 2021
Aahana House had a targeted inspection and was not rated; its previous overall Good rating remained, with infection controls mostly in place during a COVID-19 outbreak.
This was a targeted inspection on 30 November 2020. Inspectors looked only at infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak. They spoke with two people, two staff and the registered manager, and reviewed care records, cleaning schedules and management records.
Inspectors found that the home was mostly following shielding, distancing and infection control measures. People who tested positive were supported to isolate in their rooms. Staff used protective equipment, had infection control training and followed thorough cleaning schedules.
There were some concerns about how information was shared with people. One person said they did not feel safe because they were not told when others tested positive. Inspectors also found that staff did not remind one person to avoid going out when this would have been safer.
The inspection was not rated. The previous overall rating was Good, published in October 2019, and remained unchanged. This inspection did not reassess the whole service.
Support during infection
People who tested positive were supported to isolate in their rooms. The home also had plans for people whose bedrooms did not have en-suite bathrooms.
“People who tested positive for COVID-19 received appropriate support and remained isolated in their rooms.” from the report
Staff infection control training
Staff used protective equipment safely and had detailed training about preventing infections.
“Staff had received in-depth training about infection prevention and control and were able to describe how they were currently controlling the spread of infection.” from the report
Cleaning
Inspectors found the home was clean and hygienic, with detailed cleaning schedules and extra cleaning materials.
“The provider kept the premises in a clean and hygienic condition.” from the report
Individual risk planning
The home used personalised COVID-19 care planning and risk assessments for people at higher risk of serious harm.
“This took into account the person's individual circumstances that put them at higher risk of being seriously harmed by the virus” from the report
Advice about leaving the home
needs fixingStaff reminded one person to wear a mask but did not also remind them that going into the community should be avoided where possible because others in the home had tested positive.
“However, they did not remind the person they should not be going into the community at all if avoidable because others in their home had tested positive for COVID-19.” from the report
Difficult layout
minorSocial distancing was difficult because of the home's layout. Not every bedroom had an en-suite bathroom, although the provider had contingency plans.
“At this inspection we found the provider was mostly meeting this, although social distancing was difficult to maintain because of the home's layout.” from the report
- 01How will you tell residents promptly when someone in the home tests positive for COVID-19 or another infection?
- 02What is your current plan for people who need to isolate but whose bedrooms do not have en-suite bathrooms?
- 03How do staff support residents to follow mask, distancing and advice about avoiding the community when there is an infection risk?
- 04How often are infection control policies, staff training and cleaning schedules reviewed?
- 05What changes have been made since the concerns found in this inspection about communication with residents?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during a COVID-19 outbreak; it did not assess the full key question or change the previous overall Good rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 20 January 2021 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, October 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, supportive care, but staff training and a few minor safety issues needed attention.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 20 August 2019. Inspectors looked at Safe, Effective and Well-led after concerns about risk management, the environment and staff skills. They spoke with people, staff and the manager, checked care records and reviewed other information.
The home supported 13 people with mental health support needs. Inspectors found people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm, medicines were managed safely, staffing was sufficient and risks were assessed. The home was clean, although two minor environmental safety issues were identified.
Care was based on people's needs and staff worked with health and social care professionals. However, some people felt staff did not understand their particular mental health conditions well enough. The provider was advised to look for further training in this area.
The home was rated Good overall and Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Caring and Responsive were not inspected during this visit, so earlier ratings for those areas were used in the overall rating.
Risk management
The provider assessed risks before admission, kept risk plans up to date and used lessons from incidents to improve safety.
“The provider reviewed risk assessments regularly to make sure staff had up to date information about how to care for people safely.” from the report
Medicines
Inspectors found that medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely, including medicines prescribed for use when needed.
“Medicines were managed safely. Staff were trained in safe medicines administration.” from the report
Rehabilitation support
The home followed relevant guidance to help people work towards recovery and greater independence.
“The provider followed relevant guidance about mental health rehabilitation to support people to work towards recovery and living independently.” from the report
Open management
People could speak with the manager, raise concerns and contribute ideas through residents' meetings and surveys.
“The service had an inclusive and empowering culture. People were encouraged to speak up about discrimination.” from the report
Staff knowledge
needs fixingSome people felt staff did not fully understand their specific mental health conditions. The provider was recommended to research suitable training.
“However, two people did not feel the staff had a thorough understanding of their specific mental health conditions and records confirmed staff did not have formal training around those conditions.” from the report
Minor environmental risks
minorA bathroom could be locked from inside, creating a risk of someone being trapped. Two showers leaked onto bedroom floors, creating a possible slipping risk.
“A communal bathroom locked by an internal bolt, which meant there was a risk of people being trapped inside.” from the report
Food quality
minorAlthough people had nutritious choices, two people said the food could be better quality.
“Two people felt the food could be of better quality.” from the report
Infection control checks
minorThe home did not carry out an infection control audit. Inspectors found no infection control problems but said an audit would help manage future risks.
“Although we did not identify any issues around infection control, having the audit would help the provider manage risks in future.” from the report
- 01What training have staff completed on my relative's specific mental health condition?
- 02Have the internal bathroom bolt and the leaking en-suite showers been repaired?
- 03What changes were made after the concerns about behaviour that challenged the service?
- 04How do you check the quality of food and respond to residents' feedback?
- 05How do you carry out infection control checks now that the report noted there was no infection control audit?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 October 2019 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 Aahana House
2 rated inspections over a year: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- January 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- October 2019Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- April 2019GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 8 February 2018.
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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Croydon
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 £1,230 a week. 77 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“She cared for my mum with Alzheimer's with endless patience and kindness, always arriving with a smile and a positive attitude”
“Terry has been of invaluable help to our family while working as a part-time live-in carer for our mother for approximately 6 months”
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.