CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Aarons Specialist Unit
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks in medicines, consent, risk assessments and the systems used to improve care.
The inspection took place on 7 March and 21 April 2023. It was unannounced. Inspectors observed care, spoke with 11 relatives and staff, and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment and management records. They returned because they found concerns about consent and the Mental Capacity Act.
The home was not always safe. Risk assessments did not always cover known risks. Medicines were not always managed safely, and lessons were not always learned after incidents. Some areas of the building were not well maintained, which affected hygiene, privacy and personalisation.
The home supported people's health and arranged prompt access to health professionals. There were enough suitably skilled staff. However, some conditions attached to legal safeguards were not met, and quality checks did not lead to evidence of improvements. The overall rating changed from Good at the previous inspection to Requires Improvement.
Staffing
Inspectors found enough suitably skilled nursing and care staff to meet people's needs, including people needing one-to-one care.
“There were enough suitably skilled staff on duty to meet people's needs.” from the report
Health support
People received regular health monitoring and prompt access to relevant health and care professionals.
“People had prompt access to relevant professionals when needed as there was multidisciplinary in-house support from health and care professionals.” from the report
Training
Training records showed staff had the skills and knowledge needed for their roles. Nurses and other health professionals received support to maintain their clinical skills.
“The provider had a robust training schedule.” from the report
Working with relatives
Relatives had ways to share their experience, and the home worked with health and social care professionals to support joined-up care.
“Systems within the service gave relatives, staff and other stakeholders avenues to share their experience of the service.” from the report
Medicines safety
seriousMedicines disposal, checks on patches, as-required prescriptions and stock checks were not always safe or accurate.
“The management of medicines was not always safe.” from the report
Risk assessments
seriousThe home did not always assess known risks or put measures in place to protect people and staff.
“The provider did not always assess and mitigate known risks to people who used the service.” from the report
Legal safeguards
seriousSome conditions on Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisations were not met. This meant some restrictions may not have been lawful.
“This put people at risk of illegal deprivation of their liberty.” from the report
Follow-up after incidents
needs fixingIncidents were recorded and reported, but the home did not always take enough action to reduce the risk of them happening again.
“There was not always sufficient action taken by staff to minimise the risk of accidents and incidents reoccurring.” from the report
Building and privacy
needs fixingInspectors found chipped paint, furniture needing replacement, and a lack of curtains or suitable alternatives. These issues affected dignity, privacy and personalisation.
“The premises were not always maintained to expected standards.” from the report
Quality improvement
seriousAudits identified some problems, but records did not show that improvements were completed or checked later. Inspectors also found that audits had missed important failings.
“There was no evidence of actions taken to address them or update on these at the next monthly audits.” from the report
- 01What changes have been made to medicines disposal, patch checks, as-required prescriptions and stock checks?
- 02How are known risks now assessed and reviewed, especially risks linked to behaviour and one-to-one care?
- 03How do you make sure every condition attached to a Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards authorisation is met and recorded?
- 04What action has been taken after accidents and incidents, and how do you check that the same problems do not happen again?
- 05Which improvements have been completed to the building, curtains, furniture and personalisation of bedrooms?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, later extended to Effective; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and ratings for uninspected questions were carried forward from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 June 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, April 2020
Aarons Specialist Unit was rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with activities still needing improvement.
Inspectors made an unannounced follow-up visit on 13 and 16 March 2020. They spoke with one person, three relatives and 11 staff, observed care, and checked care, medicines, recruitment and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines practice, clean surroundings, personalised care and respectful support for people with dementia and complex needs.
The home had improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection, published in March 2019. The earlier breach about staffing had been resolved, and the home was no longer in breach of regulations.
Enough staff
Inspectors found staffing levels were sufficient and that staff responded promptly when people needed help.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs in a timely way.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were described as patient, compassionate and discreet. People were supported with dignity and their personal care.
“People were supported by staff who were kind and considerate.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's needs, likes and preferences. Staff supported relationships, interests and access to the community.
“People received personalised care. Care plans reflected their care needs, likes and preferences and were reviewed regularly, and when people's needs changed.” from the report
Open management
Inspectors found managers were visible, supportive and willing to act on feedback and incidents.
“There was an open culture in the service.” from the report
Activities could be better
minorPeople and staff said activities could be improved. The provider had recognised this and planned to increase the choice of activities.
“People and staff did comment activities could be improved.” from the report
- 01What new activities and choices have been introduced since the inspection?
- 02How will you find out what my relative wants if they find it difficult to communicate?
- 03How do you check that staffing levels remain sufficient for people's needs?
- 04How are my relative's care plan, preferences and changing needs reviewed with the family?
- 05How do you monitor medicines and act when an audit finds an error or anomaly?
This was an unannounced follow-up inspection covering all five CQC questions, but inspectors could speak with only one person using the service because other people had communication difficulties. This explanation was written from the published report of 9 April 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.
Every inspection of Aarons Specialist Unit
4 rated inspections over 7 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- June 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2020Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2016GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 November 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Leicestershire
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. 82 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.”
“Together Earther and I supported her to die at home with great dignity and compassion and him to continue with life.”
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.