Skip to content
The Care Home DirectoryEvery care home in England

CQC report explained · a nursing home

What the CQC found at Aaron Court

Goodpublished 4 July 2023, 3 years ago

Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.

The five questions inspectors ask
Safe?
Good
Medicines, risks, staffing, recruitment and infection control were managed safely. Inspectors found improvements to care records and medicine guidance since the previous inspection.
Effective?
Good
People's health, nutrition and hydration needs were met. Mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions had improved, and staff worked well with health professionals.
Caring?
Good
This area was not inspected during this focused visit, so there is no new rating or detailed finding for Caring.
Responsive?
Good
This area was not inspected during this focused visit, so there is no new rating or detailed finding for Responsive.
Well-led?
Good
Management oversight and quality monitoring had improved. The home used action plans, staff feedback and learning from incidents to improve care.
The latest report, explained

What inspectors found, July 2023

Rated Good; inspectors found safe, effective and well-led care, with improvements since the last inspection.

This was an unannounced focused inspection on 13 June 2023. Inspectors spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care records, medicine records, recruitment files and management records.

The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective and Well-led. Inspectors found improvements in medicines guidance, risk assessments, infection control, mental capacity checks and quality monitoring. The home was no longer in breach of regulations.

The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement, published in October 2022, to Good. This inspection did not review all five areas. Caring and Responsive were not inspected, so the report does not provide new findings about those areas.

What inspectors praised
  • Safer medicines

    The home improved its records and guidance for pain patches, diabetes monitoring, covert medicines and end-of-life medicines. Medicine audits and staff competency checks were also in place.

    “Systems and processes were in place to monitor the safe use of medicines, which included regular audits of medicine practices” from the report
  • Suitable staffing

    Inspectors found enough staff with suitable training and skills. Recruitment records included the required checks.

    “There were sufficient staff to meet people's need.” from the report
  • Health and nutrition support

    Staff monitored people's health, involved health professionals and supported people with meals, drinks and snacks. Inspectors found clear guidance for people receiving nutrition through a tube.

    “People's nutritional and hydration needs were met and there was a strong emphasis on the importance of eating and drinking well.” from the report
  • Improved management

    The management team had strengthened daily checks, audits and action plans. Staff and health professionals gave positive feedback about communication and leadership.

    “The registered manager and the management team demonstrated they had improved the oversight and monitoring of the service to promote good quality and safe care.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Smell in some bedrooms

    minor

    Inspectors noticed a faint smell of urine in some bedrooms. The home was replacing carpets with alternative flooring, and much of this work had already been completed.

    “We noted a faint smell of urine in some bedrooms.” from the report
  • Damaged dining chairs

    minor

    Two dining room chairs had damaged outer covers. The manager removed and replaced them during the inspection.

    “However, we found 2 dining room chairs with damaged outer covers.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01What checks are now used to make sure the improvements to medicine records and guidance have been maintained?
  2. 02Have all carpets been replaced where there were concerns about smells in bedrooms?
  3. 03How are mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions kept up to date?
  4. 04What current ratings or feedback are available for Caring and Responsive, which were not reviewed in this inspection?
  5. 05How are daily checks, audits and action plans used to identify and fix any new shortfalls?

This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led only; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and the overall rating used previous ratings for the areas not reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 4 July 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.

An earlier report, explained

What inspectors found, October 2022

Rated Requires Improvement, improved from Inadequate and no longer in Special Measures; inspectors still found risks in medicines, care plans, consent and management.

This was an unannounced focused inspection on 6 and 7 September 2022. Inspectors reviewed care and medicines records, staff files, rotas, incidents, audits and complaints. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and visiting health professionals.

The home had improved since the previous inspection, especially staffing, recruitment, cleanliness and its use of electronic monitoring. People and relatives generally spoke positively about the care. Staff knew people well and inspectors saw caring and effective support.

However, medicines were not always managed safely. Care plans did not always give staff enough guidance. Mental capacity assessments and records were incomplete, and some incidents were not recorded. These issues meant the home remained in breach of regulations on consent, safe care and treatment, and good governance.

The overall rating changed from Inadequate to Requires Improvement. The home left Special Measures, but CQC said further improvements were needed and would continue to monitor progress.

What inspectors praised
  • Enough staff

    Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Agency staff were usually booked for longer periods and knew the people they supported.

    “People told us that there were enough staff and that staff attended quickly if their emergency buzzer was pressed.” from the report
  • Kind and respectful care

    People, relatives and staff spoke positively about the culture of care. Inspectors observed staff supporting people in a caring way.

    “They don't embarrass people. They treat them with humanity. They don't tell them off.” from the report
  • Good partnership working

    Visiting health and social care professionals said communication was good. Staff recognised when to seek outside help and acted on advice.

    “They explained that care staff were aware of when to call for external health support and acted on any advice given.” from the report
  • Improved monitoring

    The new electronic system helped management see when people might not have had enough food, drink or other support. This allowed staff to follow up concerns.

    “The implementation of the electronic system was still at an early stage.” from the report
  • Safer recruitment

    The previous recruitment breach had been addressed. Inspectors found appropriate checks had been completed before the staff reviewed started work.

    “Staff were safely recruited.” from the report
What inspectors were concerned about
  • Medicine safety

    serious

    Records did not always show that pain patches had been checked. Used needles were carried through the home, and guidance was unclear about when to recheck blood sugar after glucose was given.

    “This poor management of medicines, placed people at risk of harm.” from the report
  • Incomplete care plans

    serious

    Some care plans contained contradictory health information or missed important details about wounds and mental health needs. This could make it harder for new staff or visiting professionals to provide safe care.

    “Care plans did not always provide good quality guidance on people's physical health needs.” from the report
  • Mental capacity records

    serious

    The home did not always complete mental capacity assessments before making decisions or placing restrictions on people. Records supporting covert medicines were also incomplete.

    “Effective systems were not in place, to ensure all people had their mental capacity assessed before staff began making decisions for them.” from the report
  • Incidents not always recorded

    needs fixing

    Some incidents involving staff and residents were not recorded, and care plans were not updated. This could affect how lessons were learned and how future risks were managed.

    “Accident and incident reports were not consistently completed by staff.” from the report
  • Infection control and cleanliness

    needs fixing

    Some staff wore masks below their nose or chin. Kitchenettes still needed improvement, including food date records and bin condition.

    “We observed several staff wearing masks below their nose or chin.” from the report
  • Weak management checks

    serious

    Management audits had not reliably found or fixed repeated problems with care plans, medicine records, mask use and kitchenette cleanliness.

    “The provider's governance systems had failed to bring the service to a good quality standard.” from the report
Questions to ask them, based on this report
  1. 01How do you now check and record that pain patches remain in the correct place?
  2. 02How are used needles disposed of immediately after injections?
  3. 03How do you make sure every person has a completed mental capacity assessment before restrictions or care decisions are made?
  4. 04What records support the use of covert medicines, including the best-interest decisions and instructions for staff?
  5. 05What has been done to improve care plans, incident reporting and the cleanliness of the communal kitchenettes?

This was a focused inspection planned for Safe and Well-led, widened on the day to include Effective; the other key question ratings were carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 5 October 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.

The story over the years

Every inspection of Aaron Court

7 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.

  1. July 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read what inspectors found at Aaron Court →

  2. October 2022Requires improvementup from Inadequate
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read what inspectors found at Aaron Court →

  3. March 2022Inadequate
    Safe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  4. March 2021Inspected but not rated
    Safe: Inspected but not rated

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  5. September 2019Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  6. January 2019Requires improvementdown from Good
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  7. April 2016Goodup from Requires improvement
    Safe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  8. May 2015Requires improvement
    Safe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good

    Read this report on cqc.org.uk

  9. January 2014

    Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 20 January 2014.

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.

Next steps

Weigh the report against the rest

Care at home

At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leicester

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 £1,270 a week. 83 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.

“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
Caroline C., about Mary K.
“Tino was the most wonderfully rounded, empathetic and intuitive person. He not only developed a great relationship with Neville but also had a great working relationship with our existing carer.”
Anne H., about Tinotenda C.
See live-in carers near LeicesterProfiles, rates and reviews are free to look at.

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.