CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Aberdeen House
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 only checked specific safety concerns about PPE, cleaning and medicines. They found enough improvement for the home to be no longer in breach of Regulation 12, but the full Safe rating was not reviewed.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
- Well-led?
- Inadequate
- This question was not assessed in this targeted inspection.
What inspectors found, June 2021
Aberdeen House was inspected but not rated; the previous Requires Improvement rating remains, although inspectors found improvements in infection control and medicines.
This was an unannounced, targeted inspection on 27 April 2021. One inspector spoke with seven staff, reviewed medication, temperature and cleaning records, and observed care in communal areas.
The visit followed a warning notice about personal protective equipment, cleaning and medicines. Inspectors found staff were using and disposing of PPE correctly, high-touch areas were being cleaned regularly, and medicines were being given safely.
The home was no longer in breach of Regulation 12. However, this inspection only checked specific concerns. It did not reassess the full Safe question or change the previous overall Requires Improvement rating.
PPE procedures
Staff were consistently following the procedures for putting on, taking off and disposing of PPE.
“Processes were in place and being consistently followed by staff when putting on and taking off PPE.” from the report
Cleaning
High-touch areas, bedrooms and communal bathrooms were being cleaned regularly, with records to show this.
“Cleaning schedules for high touch areas had been implemented. We viewed cleaning records which demonstrated high touch areas were being cleaned frequently.” from the report
Medicines
The report says medicines were being administered safely and in line with the relevant guidance and prescriptions.
“People were receiving medicines safely. Relevant guidance was in place and being used by staff to ensure medicines were administered in accordance with how they were prescribed.” from the report
Health monitoring
Staff and residents were having their temperatures checked to help identify possible signs of COVID-19.
“Staff were taking their temperatures at the start of each shift, and people living at the service were having their temperatures taken regularly also.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How do you check that staff continue to put on, remove and dispose of PPE correctly?
- 02How often are high-touch areas and communal bathrooms cleaned, and can families see the cleaning records?
- 03How are medicines checked to make sure they are given exactly as prescribed?
- 04What further areas will be reviewed at the next comprehensive inspection?
- 05How are staff and residents' temperature checks recorded and followed up?
This was a targeted inspection of specific parts of Safe, focused on PPE, cleaning and medicines; it did not reassess the full five key questions or change the previous rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 24 June 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.
What inspectors found, March 2021
Requires Improvement overall; inspectors found unsafe infection control and medicines practices, while leadership was rated Inadequate.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 13 January 2021. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led. They visited the home, spoke with staff and relatives, and checked care, medicine, staff and management records.
The home did not always use PPE correctly. Cleaning records and infection control training were incomplete. Some medicines were missed or stored unsafely. Staff did not always follow care plans and risks, and some equipment and areas needed repair.
The home had systems for checking quality, but they did not reliably find or fix problems. Falls were not always reported to the local authority, and the provider had not made enough improvement since the previous inspection.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe remained Requires Improvement, while Well-led fell from Requires Improvement to Inadequate. The other three key question ratings were carried over from earlier inspections because they were not inspected this time.
Safeguarding
The home had safeguarding procedures. Staff said they knew how to raise concerns, including outside the company if needed.
“People were safeguarded from the risk of abuse.” from the report
Night staffing
Two waking staff members were available at night. The report says this meant people's needs could be responded to quickly.
“Changes to staffing had occurred since the last inspection and two waking staff members were available to support residents at night.” from the report
Warm interactions
Inspectors observed staff interacting warmly with people. Relatives also said their family members felt safe and cared for.
“Staff were observed interacting warmly with people at the service.” from the report
GP relationship
The home had a positive working relationship with the local GP surgery, including weekly telephone consultations about people's health needs.
“The service had a positive working relationship with the local GP surgery.” from the report
Infection control
seriousStaff did not consistently put on and remove PPE safely. Cleaning schedules for high-touch areas and shared equipment were not in place, creating a risk of infection spreading.
“Staff failed to wear personal protective equipment (PPE) properly.” from the report
Medicines
seriousSome medicines were not given, and the reasons were not recorded. Surplus medicines were found in an unlocked room, and some medicine records were incomplete.
“People did not always receive their prescribed medicines safely.” from the report
Falls and risk management
seriousFalls were not always reported to the local authority, and records did not show strong analysis or preventive action. This meant some people continued to experience falls.
“One person had experienced seven falls which were reportable, but the local authority had only been informed of two.” from the report
Repairs and equipment
needs fixingSome areas and equipment needed repair. A damaged ceiling, a broken standing aid, an unused stair lift and a broken thermometer were identified.
“Some equipment was broken and had not been fixed.” from the report
Weak quality checks
seriousAudits were completed but did not reliably identify problems with PPE, medicines, equipment or care plans. The provider had not made enough improvement after the previous inspection.
“Quality assurance processes and systems were in place but did not robustly identify areas of practice that needed to be addressed.” from the report
- 01What has been done to ensure all staff use PPE correctly and complete infection control training?
- 02How are medicines now checked, including missed doses, medicine patches and ointments, controlled drugs and medicines awaiting disposal?
- 03How are falls reported to the local authority, and what action is taken when someone has repeated falls?
- 04Which damaged areas and broken equipment have now been repaired or replaced?
- 05How does the provider now check that care plans, risk assessments and improvement actions are being followed?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other three key question ratings were carried over from previous comprehensive inspections. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 March 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 Aberdeen House
4 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has slipped, from Good to Requires improvement.
- June 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- March 2021Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Inadequate
- June 2019Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 1 August 2011.
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
48 live-in carers within about an hour of Rutland
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 £1,310 a week. 42 can care for a couple. 13 years' experience on average.
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.