CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Aigburth
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found suitable risk assessments, safe recruitment, safe medicines systems and a clean environment. People said they felt safe, although some staff described mornings as very busy.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had induction, training and supervision. People received support with food, drinks, healthcare and decision-making, including support under the Mental Capacity Act.
- Caring?
- Good
- People and relatives spoke positively about kind and compassionate staff. Inspectors saw staff respecting privacy, dignity, independence, faiths and personal relationships.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans were personalised and reviewed with people and relatives. The home offered a wide range of activities, supported communication and dealt with complaints appropriately.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found clear management systems, regular feedback and quality checks. The new manager had been in post for two weeks and was supported by the deputy manager and area manager.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with some staff concern about busy mornings and a newly appointed manager.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 20 June 2019. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They observed care and reviewed care, medicines, recruitment, training, complaints and management records.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found people were safe, treated with kindness and dignity, supported to make choices, and offered personalised care, meals, activities and contact with others.
The overall Good rating was unchanged from the previous inspection, published in November 2016. A new manager had been in post for two weeks and had started the process of applying to become registered with CQC.
People felt safe
Staff understood safeguarding and individual risks. Inspectors saw safe moving and handling, up-to-date emergency plans and suitable checks on equipment and the environment.
“People were safe, they were supported by staff that had a good knowledge of the risks associated with providing care, including the risks of infection control.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives praised the staff. Inspectors saw warm relationships and support that respected privacy, dignity, independence, faith and personal identity.
“People received care from staff that were kind, caring and compassionate.” from the report
Personalised support
Staff took time to learn about people's backgrounds, interests and preferences. Care records were reviewed with people and their relatives.
“People's care plans and associated care records were regularly reviewed with the involvement of people and their relatives.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People were offered varied group and one-to-one activities. Visitors, relatives, faith leaders and community links were welcomed and supported.
“Each person was given a daily copy of the activity programme and pictorial activity timetables were visible on notice boards throughout the home.” from the report
Choice and decision-making
Staff supported people to make choices and worked within the Mental Capacity Act. Inspectors found that people were supported in the least restrictive way possible.
“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
Busy mornings
minorSome staff said mornings were very busy and that an extra staff member would help until about 11am. Inspectors observed that people's needs were responded to promptly on the inspection day.
“I think we could do with an extra member of staff in the mornings until about 11am, rarely does the call bell turn out to be a priority call, we cannot leave someone vulnerable in the shower.” from the report
Manager registration
minorThere was no manager registered with CQC at the time of inspection. The new manager had been in post for two weeks and had submitted an application to CQC.
“The service did not have a manager registered with CQC.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure there are enough staff during the busy morning period?
- 02Has the manager's CQC registration application now been completed?
- 03How are care plans reviewed with residents and their relatives?
- 04Which activities are available for someone with my relative's interests and communication needs?
- 05How do you monitor medicines, falls, nutrition and other individual risks?
This was an unannounced planned inspection of all five key questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 July 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.
What inspectors found, November 2016
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, with some delays at mealtimes and a need for more equipment.
Inspectors visited on 21 and 28 September 2016. The first visit was unannounced and the second was announced. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers. They also reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files and quality checks, and observed care.
The home was rated Good overall and Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practice, suitable training, kind staff and care plans that reflected people's needs.
People were supported with food, health needs, activities, faith and community links. Managers were accessible and the home used audits and feedback to monitor quality.
There were still some points to watch. Some people waited about 30 minutes for lunch. Inspectors also saw that care was not always focused on the individual during some lunchtime support. The report says action had been taken since a 2014 breach about meeting people's needs promptly.
Safe staffing and medicines
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and safe systems for storing and giving medicines.
“Sufficient numbers of staff were deployed to ensure people received the support they needed to be safe. People were supported to take their medicine safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were described as caring and compassionate. Inspectors observed dignified support and staff who knew people's individual preferences.
“Staff promoted people's dignity and privacy. They treated people with respect. People were treated with compassion and kindness.” from the report
Activities and community links
People could take part in activities, trips, music, faith-based support and community events. The home also supported people to maintain wider relationships.
“People were supported to take part in a choice of activities. They were supported to follow their interest and their faith.” from the report
Accessible management
People, relatives and staff said managers were open and easy to approach. The home had systems for checking care and safety.
“The registered manager and deputy manager were accessible and open to communication with people, their relatives and staff.” from the report
Limited mobility equipment
needs fixingA staff member said there was only one hoist per floor and that people could have to wait while suitable slings or equipment were found.
“We could do with a second hoist. We only have one [per floor]. It would mean they [people] won't have to wait;” from the report
Waiting for lunch
needs fixingSome people waited about 30 minutes for their meal. Inspectors noted that some people had finished eating before others received their food.
“some people had waited for about 30 minutes before they received their meal which meant that some people who were served first had already finished their meal.” from the report
Personalised support at lunchtime
minorInspectors saw that support was sometimes focused more on completing tasks than on the individual person, mainly during lunch on two floors.
“the support people received was not consistently focused on them as an individual but on the task being completed.” from the report
Occasional staffing pressure
needs fixingSome staff and a relative said staffing could be low at times, especially during absences. Inspectors found that the home used temporary staff and that people's care was not compromised.
“Some staff told us that during periods of staff absence that the staffing levels were not sufficient to meet people's needs.” from the report
- 01How long are people currently waiting for meals, and what is done when someone has to wait?
- 02How do staff make sure lunchtime support is personalised rather than focused only on completing tasks?
- 03How many hoists and suitable slings are available on each floor now?
- 04How are staffing levels adjusted during sickness or other staff absences?
- 05How are people's feedback and complaints used to check that improvements have been made?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five questions, and the home was rated Good in each one. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 November 2016 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 Aigburth
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2015Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 22 December 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.