CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Aaron House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that infection prevention measures were in place, including safe use of protective equipment, testing, cleaning and visiting arrangements.
- Effective?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Good
- This was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, August 2020
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found strong infection control, with a small cleaning issue fixed straight away.
This was an announced, targeted inspection on 17 August 2020. Inspectors looked only at infection prevention and control measures as part of a coronavirus care home review.
They found people were protected from infection. Visitors had to book visits, provide contact details, sanitise their hands, wear a mask and have their temperature checked. Staff were using protective equipment and following updated guidance.
The building was clean and had a cleaning schedule. Inspectors found some untreated wood on shelves and that the sluice room needed cleaning, but the provider dealt with these points immediately. The service was inspected but not rated, so this visit did not give an overall quality rating.
Infection prevention
Inspectors found that the home had measures to reduce the risk of infection for people living there, staff and visitors.
“We were assured the service were following safe infection prevention and control procedures to keep people safe.” from the report
Safer visits
Visits were arranged in advance and usually took place outside in designated areas, with protective equipment required.
“The home had robust systems in place to support relatives to visit their family members, minimising the risk of infection.” from the report
Staff training
Staff had training in infection control, coronavirus and using protective equipment. They were also briefed about changes to government advice.
“Staff had completed training in infection control, COVID-19 and how to put on and take of their PPE.” from the report
Visitor checks
Visitors had to sign in, leave contact details, clean their hands, wear a mask and have their temperature checked before entering.
“Visitors were required to sanitise their hands, wear a face mask and have their temperature checked prior to moving from the reception area.” from the report
Small cleaning and maintenance issues
minorSome shelves had untreated wood and the sluice room needed cleaning. The provider addressed these issues immediately.
“some shelves had areas of untreated wood and the sluice room required a clean.” from the report
- 01What infection prevention measures are in place now, and how are they checked?
- 02How are visits currently arranged, including visits for people receiving end of life care?
- 03How often are high-use areas such as door handles and hand rails cleaned?
- 04How often are staff updated and trained about protective equipment and infection control?
- 05How is testing for people living in the home and staff arranged now?
This was a targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during the coronavirus pandemic; the service was inspected but not rated and the other areas of care were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 August 2020 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, December 2018
Rated Good in all five areas; inspectors found safe, kind and person-centred care, with a few records needing improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 13 November 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a health professional. They observed daily care and checked care records, medicines records, staff files, audits, the building and equipment.
The home was rated Good overall, with Good ratings for Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable care planning, kind and respectful staff, activities that reflected people's interests, and good links with health professionals.
There were some smaller issues. One medicines competency assessment was not dated, one 'as required' medicines protocol needed more detail, some appraisals were overdue, and patterned carpets remained in parts of the building. The manager agreed to address these points.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient and staff were available to respond to people's needs promptly.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff deployed to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff knew people well and treated them with kindness, dignity and respect.
“People were treated as individuals. Their choices and preferences were respected.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could choose from activities inside the home and outings in the local community.
“People were supported to take part in a range of activities, both within the home and in the local community.” from the report
Quality monitoring
The manager carried out regular checks and used action plans when improvements were needed.
“The registered manager monitored the quality of the service and took action when issues were identified.” from the report
Good health support
The home worked with community health professionals, including GPs and district nurses, to support people's health and end of life care.
“The service worked closely with a range of community health professionals to support people to maintain their health.” from the report
Medicines checks
needs fixingOne staff member's medicines competency assessment was not dated. One protocol for medicines taken when needed also needed more detail.
“one staff member's competency assessment was not dated so it was not clear when the assessment had been completed.” from the report
Overdue appraisals
needs fixingSome staff had not yet had their annual appraisal. The manager said these would be completed the following week.
“Some staff were overdue their annual appraisal. We discussed this with the registered manager who agreed to complete these the following week.” from the report
Patterned flooring
minorInspectors said patterned carpets in the hallway and small lounge could be unsuitable for people living with dementia. Much of the flooring had already been replaced.
“Patterned carpets may cause distress to people living with dementia due to perceptual disturbances they may experience.” from the report
- 01Has the undated medicines competency assessment been completed and recorded correctly?
- 02What extra detail was added to the protocol for medicines taken 'as and when required'?
- 03Were all overdue staff appraisals completed, and are appraisals now kept up to date?
- 04Has the patterned carpet in the hallway and small lounge been replaced?
- 05How are monthly audits and feedback from residents and relatives used to make further improvements?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five CQC questions, including care, medicines, staffing, records, the building, equipment and management systems. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 December 2018 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 House
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2020Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- December 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- October 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 27 February 2012.
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
90 live-in carers within about an hour of Sheffield
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 £1,020 to £1,270 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“Carla has been a god send with the implementation of bringing mum back home from respite care.”
“Beatrice was a talent dementia carer whose professionalism and dedication allowed mums wishes to remain in her own her come true.”
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.