CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Aden Mount Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that medicines, risks, safeguarding, staffing, recruitment and infection control were managed safely. They found that the previous breach about safe care and treatment had been addressed.
- Effective?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. A previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating, but it is not stated in the supplied report text.
- Caring?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. A previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating, but it is not stated in the supplied report text.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This area was not inspected during this focused visit. A previous rating was used in calculating the overall rating, but it is not stated in the supplied report text.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective systems for checking and improving the service. They found a positive, person-centred culture, with people and relatives involved in care and changes to the service.
What inspectors found, July 2021
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, person-centred care and improved management, but this was a focused inspection.
Inspectors visited unannounced on 15 June 2021. They spoke with five people living in the home, seven relatives and eight staff. They reviewed care, medicine and staff records, and checked how the home was managed.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that medicines, risks, safeguarding, recruitment and infection control were managed safely. They also found that people were involved in their care and that staff knew their needs well.
The previous rating was Requires Improvement, published in June 2019, with a breach about safe care and treatment. Inspectors found that improvements had been made and the home was no longer in breach.
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led. The other key questions were not inspected, so their previous ratings were used in the overall rating. The inspection did not examine the circumstances of a death that was subject to a criminal investigation.
Medicines managed safely
Inspectors found that medicines were managed, administered and stored safely. Staff had training and regular checks of their competence.
“Records showed people received their medication as prescribed.” from the report
Staff knew people well
Care was individualised and staff understood people's needs and risks. Relatives also reported that staff were knowledgeable.
“Staff knew people well. They were caring, respectful and attentive.” from the report
Positive culture
People were involved in care planning and offered choices. Relatives and visiting professionals could give feedback, and changes were made in response.
“The service promoted a person-centred culture. Care was inclusive and achieved good outcomes for people.” from the report
Strong oversight
The manager had systems to monitor quality, identify lessons and act on areas needing improvement. Staff received regular supervision and training.
“Systems and processes were in place to effectively monitor and improve the quality of the service.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements for preventing and managing infection, including safe use of protective equipment and visits.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are pressure care risks assessed, monitored and reviewed now?
- 02How do you check that medicines are given as prescribed and that staff remain competent to manage them?
- 03How do you decide whether there are enough staff for people's changing needs?
- 04How do you continue to prevent and manage infection outbreaks, and what visiting arrangements are currently in place?
- 05What changes have been made recently as a result of feedback from people and relatives?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, including infection control; the other key questions were not inspected and their previous ratings carried over into the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 30 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.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Requires Improvement; care was kind and more personalised, but medicines were not always managed safely and monitoring was not yet effective.
This was an unannounced inspection on 14 May 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, visitors and staff. They observed care, checked care plans, medicines, staffing, training, complaints and quality checks.
The home had improved since the previous inspection in August 2018. There were enough staff, risks were mostly assessed, and care plans were more personalised. People described staff as kind, respectful and supportive. The home provided suitable activities and responded to complaints.
There were still important problems. Staff did not always follow medicines procedures, some moving and handling guidance lacked detail, and audits had not always found or solved these issues. Some furniture, carpets and other areas were worn and damaged. The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Effective, caring and responsive care were rated Good, while safe and well-led were rated Requires Improvement.
Kind and respectful care
People and visitors spoke highly of the care. Inspectors observed staff being patient, respectful and attentive to privacy and dignity.
“Staff were kind and spoke to people in friendly, caring and respectful manner.” from the report
Improved personalised care
Care plans had improved since the previous inspection and staff knew people's preferences and support needs.
“Care plans had been improved since our last inspection.” from the report
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff on duty. Call bells were answered promptly and people said they did not usually wait long for help.
“I ring the bell, I never wait long.” from the report
Activities and community access
The home had a dedicated activities coordinator and offered a range of activities suited to different interests, including activities for people cared for in their rooms.
“There was a varied choice of activities to cater for all people's preferences.” from the report
Medicines procedures
seriousStaff did not always follow medicines procedures. Records for carried-over medicines and as-required medicines were incomplete, protocols lacked detail, and medicine storage temperatures were not monitored.
“Medicine procedures were not always followed to ensure safe management of medicines.” from the report
Moving and handling guidance
needs fixingRisk assessments for people supported with hoists did not contain enough detail to guide staff safely. The manager addressed this after the inspection.
“We identified that where people were supported using hoists the risk assessment lacked detail.” from the report
Quality checks did not always work
needs fixingAudits had identified many improvement areas, but they had not always found or stopped repeated medicines problems.
“Some audits had not identified some of the issues we raised as part of our inspection.” from the report
Worn areas and furniture
minorSome furniture, carpets and chairs were damaged, stained or worn. An improvement and renewal programme was in progress.
“areas of the home were tired, damaged and not well maintained to be able to be effectively cleaned.” from the report
Meals on one unit
needs fixingThe meal service for people staying in their rooms needed improvement. Food was taken to rooms uncovered and staff were rushing to complete the service.
“food was taken to rooms without a trey and uncovered.” from the report
- 01How are medicines now checked to make sure carried-over amounts, as-required medicines and storage temperatures are recorded correctly?
- 02How do you check that staff follow medicines procedures every time, and what happens if an audit finds another error?
- 03What detailed instructions are now in place for people who need hoist transfers?
- 04What work has been completed on the worn furniture, carpets and other areas identified in the improvement programme?
- 05How has the meal service for people staying in their rooms been changed since the inspection?
This was an unannounced scheduled inspection covering all five CQC questions, with the premises and care both examined; the report also compares the findings with the previous inspection in August 2018. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 June 2019 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 Aden Mount Care Home
5 rated inspections over 5 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2021Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: InadequateEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 19 January 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Kirklees
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. 86 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.”
“Primrose is a very kind and compassionate healthcare professional”
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.