CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Aarondale Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found medicines, risk management, safeguarding, staffing and infection control had improved. More time was needed to show that safe practice was consistent.
- Effective?
- Requires improvement
- Staff training, care planning, consent processes, food and support for people's needs had improved. Some capacity assessments still needed more detail and care records were still being reviewed.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff knew people well and supported their independence.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans had improved and people's health, communication, activities and relationships were supported. However, some end of life wishes were not recorded.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management systems, audits, incident reviews and feedback processes had been overhauled. Inspectors still needed more evidence that good governance and record-keeping would remain consistent.
What inspectors found, November 2022
Aarondale Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found major progress, but more time was needed to show care and oversight were consistently good.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 17 October 2022. Inspectors observed care, spoke with people, relatives and staff, and checked care plans, training and quality records.
The home had improved significantly since its previous Inadequate rating. Medicines, safety checks, staff training, food, the building, care planning and management systems were all better. People and relatives described staff as kind, respectful and caring.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were also Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were Good. The home was no longer in breach of regulations and was no longer in Special Measures, but inspectors wanted more evidence that improvements would last.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw kind interactions and support that protected dignity and encouraged independence.
“Throughout the day of our inspection, we observed positive interactions between people and staff.” from the report
Safer medicines
Medicines were given as prescribed. Staff had training and checks of their competence, including for medicines given when needed.
“We found people received their medicines as prescribed and staff were trained and competent to administer medications safely.” from the report
Improved management
The management team had introduced audits, daily record checks and reviews of accidents and incidents. These changes gave the service better oversight.
“At this inspection, we found monthly audits were carried out and where they highlighted issues, adequate action plans were in place.” from the report
Better food and hydration support
The kitchen was clean and food was stored safely. People had suitable choices, and drinks were available in rooms and shared areas.
“Drinks were readily available to people, both in their rooms and communal areas to help people maintain their hydration levels throughout the day.” from the report
Improved activities and communication
An activity co-ordinator had been appointed, and staff had improved how they communicated with people. Visits from relatives and friends were supported.
“Their sole role was to help facilitate activities for people both as a group and on an individualised basis” from the report
End of life wishes
needs fixingSome care plans did not record people's wishes for end of life care. Inspectors recommended that these wishes should be explored and recorded more fully.
“We recommend the provider better explores and records people's end of life wishes” from the report
Inconsistent records
needs fixingCare records and records of position changes had improved, but inspectors said the quality and consistency of recording still needed attention.
“Although there was still further information to input, there was enough information, and staff knew people well enough” from the report
More detail in capacity assessments
needs fixingPeople's capacity was assessed more consistently, but decision-specific assessments needed more detail and some care plans were still being reviewed.
“Further detail was required to better evidence decision specific assessments.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure my relative's end of life wishes are discussed, recorded and kept up to date?
- 02How do you check that care records and records of position changes are completed consistently on every shift?
- 03If my relative may lack capacity for a particular decision, how will you record the decision-specific assessment and best interests decision?
- 04What evidence can you show that the improvements made since the last inspection have continued?
- 05How will you respond if my relative has a concern or complaint about their care?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions, including infection prevention and control, and it checked whether improvements had been made since the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 12 November 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.
What inspectors found, May 2022
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found people at risk from unsafe medicines, poor records, blocked fire exits and weak oversight.
This was an unannounced inspection on 7 March 2022. Three inspectors visited the home, spoke with people, staff, relatives and managers, observed care, and checked care plans, medicines, staffing and quality records.
Inspectors found serious problems with safety. Medicines were not always given or recorded safely. Risks were not properly assessed. A fire exit and evacuation chair were partly blocked. Some equipment was not safely used or maintained. Food and drinks did not always meet people's needs.
The home was also rated Inadequate for effective care and leadership. Staff training was incomplete, mental capacity decisions were not properly recorded, and care records were often inaccurate or out of date. Caring and responsive care were rated Requires Improvement because people's dignity, communication and personalised support were not always protected.
Enough staff on duty
Inspectors found enough staff on duty to meet people's needs. Recruitment checks were completed.
“There were enough staff on duty to meet people's needs. Recruitment of new staff was safe.” from the report
Kind interactions
Inspectors saw some positive interactions. Staff were described as kind and explained care before providing support.
“Staff were kind and tactile. They addressed people by name and explained before any support was carried out.” from the report
Appropriate protective equipment
The home had adequate supplies of personal protective equipment, and staff used it appropriately.
“There were adequate supplies of PPE and staff used this appropriately.” from the report
Medicines were not consistently safe
seriousSome staff had not been assessed as competent to administer medicines. Records and guidance for medicines given when needed were incomplete.
“People were at risk of not receiving their medicines as prescribed, and in line with best practice guidance.” from the report
Fire and environmental risks
seriousA fire exit and evacuation chair were partly blocked. Inspectors also found hazards including flammable materials, an unlocked maintenance room and an unplugged sensor mat.
“We observed a fire exit and fire evacuation chair on a stairwell obstructed by items such as vacuum cleaners, walking aids and cardboard boxes.” from the report
Food and hydration
seriousSome food was out of date, meals were not always suitable or appetising, and drinks were not readily available in bedrooms.
“Drinks were not readily available to people. We looked in people's bedrooms and found people did not have a jug of water or juice” from the report
Care records were unreliable
seriousRecords did not always show people's current health needs, nutrition, hydration, weight or pressure-area care. Some information was inaccurate or inconsistent.
“The provider failed to maintain an accurate and current record of the care and support provided to people.” from the report
Staff training was incomplete
seriousNot all staff had the training, supervision or induction needed for their roles. Some staff administered medicines without a competency assessment.
“The provider failed to ensure staff were adequately trained and had the skills, knowledge and competence required for their role.” from the report
Weak management oversight
seriousAudits did not identify some of the problems found by inspectors. Action plans and follow-up were not reliable, so the provider could not show that concerns were being corrected.
“Systems to assess, monitor and improve the service had not been implemented and operated effectively.” from the report
- 01How are medicines now checked, and has every staff member who gives medicines passed a competency assessment?
- 02How have the blocked fire exit and other environmental hazards been dealt with, and when were they last checked?
- 03What changes have been made to meals, specialist diets and the availability of drinks in bedrooms?
- 04How are mental capacity assessments, best-interest decisions and expired DoLS applications now being managed?
- 05Who is currently managing the home, and can you show us the action plan and evidence that improvements have been completed?
This was an unannounced first inspection of the newly registered service and covered all five key questions, including infection prevention and control and concerns about staffing. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 May 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 Aarondale Care Home
6 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- November 2022Requires improvementcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2022InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- March 2021Inspected but not ratedSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: InadequateWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- January 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2020
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 October 2020.
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.