CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Aden View Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found that risks were assessed, medicines were managed safely, recruitment checks were completed and infection control systems were in place. They recommended closer monitoring of staffing levels because some people felt more staff were sometimes needed.
- Effective?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection. The report says people spoke positively about staff and saw staff being caring and attentive.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not assessed during this focused inspection. Its previous rating was carried forward.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found a positive culture, effective audits and good involvement of people, relatives and staff. Complaints were managed well, although some records needed more detail.
What inspectors found, February 2024
Aden View Care Home was rated Good; inspectors found safe, caring care, but staffing levels and complaints records needed attention.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 11 January 2024. Inspectors reviewed care and medicines records, staff records and management information. They spoke with 8 people living at the home, 4 relatives and 12 staff.
The home was rated Good for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks and medicines were managed safely, infection control practices were followed, and staff were trained and supported. People and relatives generally spoke positively about the care.
Some people and a relative said there were times when more staff were needed. The CQC recommended that staffing levels are monitored. Complaints were managed well, but records did not always explain the actions taken in enough detail.
This inspection only assessed Safe and Well-led. The other three ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection in 2019, when the overall rating was also Good.
Safe medicines and risk management
The home had systems to assess and manage risks. Medicines were stored and given safely, including time-critical and as-needed medicines.
“People were safe because systems were in place to make sure risks to people were assessed and actions taken to mitigate the risk.” from the report
Caring staff
People spoke positively about staff. Inspectors saw staff being caring and attentive, and people were involved in their care.
“People were involved in their care and we saw staff to be caring and attentive.” from the report
Listening and improvement
People, relatives and staff were able to give their views. The manager used feedback and audits to identify changes and improvements.
“The outcome of the most recent residents meeting had been collated and the registered manager had produced feedback for people in the form of a 'You said, we did' chart.” from the report
Staffing at busy times
needs fixingAlthough rotas showed there were enough staff overall, some people and a relative said there were times when more staff were needed. The CQC recommended monitoring staffing so people receive help promptly.
“We recommend the provider monitors staffing levels to make sure people feel confident, at all times, there are enough staff to meet their needs in a timely way.” from the report
Complaints records
minorComplaints were managed well, but records did not always give enough detail about the action taken when responding to the person who complained.
“Complaints about the service were managed well but documentation needed to reflect, in more detail, the actions taken in relation to responding to the complainant.” from the report
- 01How do you check staffing levels during busy periods and make sure people receive help promptly?
- 02What changes have you made in response to the recommendation about staffing levels?
- 03How are complaints recorded, including the action taken and the response given to the person who complained?
- 04How do you use feedback from residents' meetings and the 'You said, we did' process to make changes?
- 05When were Effective, Caring and Responsive last fully reviewed, and what were their ratings?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried forward from the previous inspection in 2019. This explanation was written from the published report of 1 February 2024 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, November 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found kind, effective care, but identified gaps in safety checks, records and mealtime support.
The inspection took place on 29 October and 4 November 2019. It was unannounced on the first day. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a visiting healthcare professional. They observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staff records and management records.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People generally described the home positively. Inspectors found kind staff, suitable staffing levels, good healthcare support and an open management approach.
There were still some shortfalls. Staff did not always check the identity of professionals entering the home. One emergency evacuation plan was incomplete, some records needed improvement, and the dining experience was not consistent for everyone. The manager acted on some issues during the inspection and had improvement plans in place.
Kind and respectful staff
People were comfortable with staff and were treated with dignity. Staff supported independence, privacy and personal choices.
“People were supported by staff who were kind and caring.” from the report
Staffing and recruitment
Inspectors found suitable staffing levels and good recruitment practices. Agency staff use had reduced, helping provide more consistent care.
“There were suitable and sufficient numbers of qualified staff to support people in line with their assessed needs.” from the report
Open management
The manager was accessible and encouraged staff, people and relatives to share views. Incidents, safeguarding concerns and complaints were dealt with proactively.
“There was an 'open door' management approach which meant the manager was easily available to staff, residents and relatives.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were involved in decisions about their care and were supported to do as much as possible for themselves.
“People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible.” from the report
Entry checks
seriousOn the first inspection day, inspectors entered without being asked who they were or having their identity checked. The manager responded appropriately when this was raised.
“On the first day of inspection we entered the home without being asked who we were or having our identify checked.” from the report
Emergency evacuation records
needs fixingOne person's personal emergency evacuation plan was incomplete, and the emergency grab bag contained an outdated plan. The manager took immediate action.
“However, we found one person's PEEP had not been completed and the emergency grab bag contained a PEEP for a person who no longer lived at the home.” from the report
Mealtime support
needs fixingPeople on one unit were offered meal choices, but not everyone could respond verbally and inspectors did not hear everyone being asked if they wanted more food.
“We did not hear anyone being asked if they wanted any more food.” from the report
As-needed medicines guidance
needs fixingSome instructions for medicines taken as needed did not give enough detail to guide staff on when to give them.
“Where people were prescribed medicines to take 'as and when required' (PRN) more detailed information was required to guide staff on when to administer them.” from the report
End of life information
needs fixingSome care plans did not contain enough personal information about people's end of life wishes. The manager agreed to work on this.
“However, we found some care plans recorded limited person-centred information relating to end of life wishes.” from the report
- 01How do you now check the identity of professionals and other visitors before allowing them into the home?
- 02How are personal emergency evacuation plans kept complete and up to date for every resident?
- 03What written guidance is now available for staff about when to give each person's as-needed medicine?
- 04How do staff make sure every resident is offered suitable meal choices and asked whether they want more food?
- 05How are residents' activity preferences and end of life wishes recorded and reviewed?
This was a planned inspection of the care, accommodation and management of the home, covering all five CQC questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 26 November 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 View Care Home
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2024Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2019Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2016Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 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.