CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Aaron Crest Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Inspectors found enough staff, regular risk assessments and effective infection control, but recommended improvements to medicines recording.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- This question was not rated in this inspection report.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this inspection report, although people and relatives gave positive comments about staff.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not rated in this inspection report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The provider was managing recent management changes, monitored quality and supported staff. Some audits, team meetings and supervisions were behind schedule.
What inspectors found, April 2023
Rated Good; inspectors found people were safe and well cared for, but medicines records and management arrangements needed attention.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 23 and 24 March 2023. They spoke with 12 people, 3 relatives and 10 staff. They reviewed care plans, risk assessments, medicines records, recruitment files, rotas and safety documents.
The home was rated Good overall. Safe and Well-led were both rated Good. People had enough care staff, risks were assessed, infection controls were in place and staff knew how to protect people from abuse.
Inspectors found some gaps in medicines recording. Storage temperatures were not recorded every day, and the opening dates of some creams and eye drops were missing. Medicines audits, staff meetings and supervisions were also behind schedule after the previous manager left.
The other three questions, Effective, Caring and Responsive, were not rated in this inspection. The last overall rating was also Good. The provider had improved its recruitment checks since the previous inspection.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough care staff and said the provider over-recruited to cover holidays.
“There were enough care staff and the provider over recruited to make sure staff holidays were covered.” from the report
Risk and safeguarding
Risks to people's health and wellbeing were assessed and reviewed. Staff had safeguarding training and understood what to do if they had concerns.
“People were protected from the risk of abuse.” from the report
Infection control
The home appeared clean and tidy. Inspectors were assured that infection risks, visiting and protective equipment were being managed.
“People were protected from the risk of the spread of infection.” from the report
Positive culture
People enjoyed living at the home, relatives found staff friendly and approachable, and staff said they enjoyed their work.
“People benefitted from a positive culture and the provider was committed to achieving good outcomes for people.” from the report
Improved recruitment checks
The provider had improved its recruitment process since the previous inspection and completed the necessary checks.
“The provider had made improvements.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingMedicine storage temperatures were not recorded consistently. The opening dates of some creams and eye drops were also missing, so the provider was asked to improve its practice.
“We found that recording of the temperature of the medicine's storage room and fridge on both floors was ad hoc, some days this was completed however there were gaps on other days.” from the report
Missed medicines audits
needs fixingSome medicines audits had not been completed recently because the previous manager had left. They were due to restart when the new manager began.
“There was a schedule for auditing medicines, however the provider had missed completing audits recently due to the previous manager leaving.” from the report
Management changes
needs fixingThere was no registered manager in post during the inspection. Team meetings, staff supervisions and some other audits were also behind schedule.
“At the time of our inspection there was not a registered manager in post.” from the report
Agency nursing staff
minorThe provider was open about difficulties recruiting permanent nurses and was relying heavily on agency nursing staff.
“The provider was open about their difficulties in recruiting permanent nursing staff and their heavy reliance on agency nursing staff.” from the report
- 01Have the medicine storage temperature records and opening dates for creams and eye drops been completed consistently since the inspection?
- 02Have regular medicines audits restarted, and what did the most recent audit find?
- 03Is there now a registered manager in post, and has the manager applied to register with the CQC?
- 04Are staff meetings and supervisions now up to date?
- 05How many permanent nursing staff and agency nurses are currently working in the home?
This inspection focused on Safe and Well-led; the Effective, Caring and Responsive questions were not rated in this report, while the previous overall rating was Good. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 April 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, July 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind care and stronger management, with minor concerns about recruitment checks, telephone access and missing clothes.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 29 June 2021. Inspectors spoke with seven people, 11 staff and nine relatives. They observed care, checked the home and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found people were protected from harm, medicines were managed safely, staffing levels met people's needs and infection control measures were in place. People and relatives gave positive feedback about the care and staff.
The home had previously been rated Requires Improvement in 2019. Inspectors found that improvements had been made and that the home was no longer in breach of regulations. This inspection did not check Effective, Caring or Responsive. Those ratings were carried over from an earlier comprehensive inspection.
People felt safe
People and relatives told inspectors they were happy with the care. Risk assessments and care plans helped staff support people safely while promoting independence.
“People were being effectively protected against avoidable harm.” from the report
Safe medicines management
Medicines were stored securely, given as prescribed and recorded properly. Staff were trained and explained medicines in a patient and supportive way.
“Records were fully completed to show that people had received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Enough trained staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs promptly. Staff received training and supervision and were familiar with the people they supported.
“People received effective and timely care and support.” from the report
Good infection control
Staff used protective equipment appropriately and the home had measures for cleaning, testing, visits and managing possible infection outbreaks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Improved leadership
Management systems had improved since the previous inspection. Staff said they were supported, listened to and given useful training.
“The provider and registered manager demonstrated a commitment to continuous improvement in the service.” from the report
DBS checking process
needs fixingInspectors recommended that the home review who authorises any risk assessment linked to DBS checks. This was a recommendation rather than a breach.
“We recommended the provider reviews the procedure checking DBS records by identifying a senior named person external to the home to authorise any risk assessment that maybe needed.” from the report
Telephone access and missing clothes
minorTwo relatives' concerns were discussed with the manager. These related to difficulty getting through by telephone and clothes going missing. The manager agreed to address them.
“there were two areas of concern, one was issues with getting through on the telephone and the other of missing clothes.” from the report
- 01What has changed in the DBS checking process since the inspection, and who now authorises any related risk assessment?
- 02How do you make sure residents' clothes are labelled, stored and returned safely?
- 03What should relatives do if they cannot get through to the home by telephone?
- 04Which ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection, and when will all five areas next be reviewed?
- 05How will you tell relatives about progress on the telephone and missing-clothes concerns?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried over from a previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 July 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.
Every inspection of Aaron Crest Care Home
6 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- April 2023Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- July 2021Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2016Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 2 December 2010.
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.