CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Aldersmead Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors were assured that the home was preventing infections, using protective equipment safely, managing outbreaks, and keeping its infection prevention policy up to date. They also asked about COVID-19-related staffing pressures.
- Effective?
- Good
- Does the care work? Training, consent, food and drink, working with GPs and nurses.
- Caring?
- Good
- Are people treated with kindness and dignity?
- Responsive?
- Good
- Is care built around the person? Care plans, activities, complaints.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Is the home run well? The manager, the culture, how problems get found and fixed.
What inspectors found, March 2022
Inspected but not rated; inspectors found good infection control during a targeted COVID-19 review.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 22 February 2022. Inspectors looked mainly at infection prevention and control during COVID-19 outbreaks, and asked about staffing pressures.
Inspectors found the home clean and hygienic. Cleaning schedules were in place, high-touch areas were cleaned regularly, and laundry systems helped reduce the risk of infection. Staff used protective equipment appropriately and had training about changes in guidance.
The home was following visiting guidance during a recent COVID-19 outbreak. Relatives were kept informed, and people were supported to keep in touch through video and audio calls. The report says people and staff had received COVID-19 vaccinations and boosters.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the report does not provide a new overall quality rating or full ratings for all five areas of care.
Cleaning and hygiene
The home was clean, with cleaning schedules for bedrooms and shared areas. High-touch surfaces were cleaned regularly and records were checked daily.
“The service was clean and hygienic and there were cleaning schedules in place for people's rooms and shared spaces.” from the report
Protective equipment
Protective equipment stations were available throughout the home. Staff were observed using protective equipment properly and had kept their training up to date.
“There were personal protective equipment (PPE) stations throughout the home. We observed staff using PPE appropriately.” from the report
Laundry arrangements
The home kept contaminated laundry separate and washed it at a suitable temperature. This was intended to reduce the risk of infection spreading.
“There were robust laundry systems in place to ensure contaminated laundry was kept separate from other laundry and was washed at a suitable temperature to reduce the risk of the spread of infection.” from the report
Contact during outbreaks
During a recent outbreak, relatives were kept informed. People could use video and audio calls, and essential care giver and end-of-life visits continued in line with guidance.
“During the recent outbreak of COVID-19 relatives were kept informed and staff supported people to use video and audio call to keep in touch.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01What measures are currently in place to manage COVID-19-related staffing pressures, and have these affected people's care?
- 02Are the cleaning schedules and daily checks described in the report still being used?
- 03Has the planned replacement of carpets with washable flooring been completed?
- 04How would relatives be kept informed if there were another infection outbreak, and what visiting arrangements would apply?
- 05How are staff and visiting professionals' vaccination or exemption requirements managed now?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control, with questions about staffing pressures; it was not a full inspection of all five areas of care and the service was not rated. This explanation was written from the published report of 16 March 2022 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, July 2021
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, caring support, but leadership checks and some medicines records needed improvement.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 20 May 2021. Inspectors looked at Safe and Well-led because of concerns about medicines, staffing and risk management. They spoke with people, a relative, staff, the manager and a healthcare professional, and reviewed care, medicines, staffing and management records.
The home was rated Good for Safe. Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, suitable risk assessments and safe medicines administration. Infection control arrangements, including visits and COVID-19 measures, were also found to be effective.
Well-led was rated Requires Improvement. Some medicines checks and records were incomplete, and falls information was not always entered into the auditing system. The new manager had started improvements, but the systems were not yet fully established. The overall rating stayed Good because the other areas were not inspected and their previous ratings were carried forward.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. Staff spent time talking with people and provided care in a dignified and unhurried way.
“There were sufficient staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Risks were managed
The home assessed risks such as diabetes, nutrition, skin damage and epilepsy. Staff followed care plans and involved other professionals when needed.
“Risks were managed safely.” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home acted after incidents and updated care records when professional advice was received.
“The service responded to incidents and learned lessons to prevent reoccurrence.” from the report
People's views mattered
People could give feedback through surveys, meetings and conversations. Inspectors found that suggestions, including requests about food and activities, led to changes.
“People were given opportunity to express their views through surveys, meetings and discussions; changes were made as a result of these.” from the report
Medicines checks
needs fixingSome opened medicines were not dated as required. There were also gaps in daily medicine stock tallies, which could make it harder to know when supplies might run low.
“There were some gaps in the daily tallying of stocks of some medicines.” from the report
Incomplete falls information
needs fixingFalls were recorded, but not all were entered into the auditing system. This meant the provider could not fully identify patterns or trends in accidents.
“There was a lack of information to enable accuracy of audits.” from the report
Management systems still developing
needs fixingThe home had been without a registered manager since February 2021. A new manager had begun improvements, but the quality systems were still being embedded.
“The new manager recognised the shortfalls of the quality systems and had started to establish systems at the service which were in the process of being embedded.” from the report
- 01How do you now check that opened medicines are dated and that daily medicine stock tallies are complete?
- 02How are all falls recorded and reviewed so that repeated risks or patterns are identified?
- 03What progress has been made with the new manager's registration and the quality systems introduced after this inspection?
- 04What action was taken after the CQC recommendation about governance and quality assurance?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings from the previous comprehensive inspection were carried forward into the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 2 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.
Every inspection of Aldersmead Care Home
3 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- March 2022Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- July 2021Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- February 2018Goodstayed GoodSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- October 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- June 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 7 March 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
28 live-in carers within about an hour of West Sussex
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 £1,020 to £1,170 a week. 23 can care for a couple. 11 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.