CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Aldringham Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, August 2018
Rated Good; inspectors found safe, kind and personalised care, with earlier safety problems improved.
This was an unannounced inspection on 27 June 2018. Inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, visitors, professionals, staff and managers. They observed care and checked care records, recruitment, training, medicines and quality monitoring.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. Inspectors found the building clean, well maintained and free from hazards. They also found safe systems for medicines, safeguarding, staffing, risk management and infection control.
People said they felt safe and well cared for. Staff knew people well, respected their privacy and supported their independence. People received personalised care, enjoyed activities and were supported with food, health needs and end-of-life wishes.
The Safe rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in August 2016 because earlier cleanliness and safety problems had been addressed. Inspectors found no evidence of serious risks or concerns at this inspection.
Safety improved
Earlier problems with cleanliness and hazards had been addressed. Inspectors found the improvement had been maintained and changed the Safe rating to Good.
“At this inspection 27 June 2018 we found the shortfalls had been addressed and have changed the rating to Good.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People spoke positively about the staff. Inspectors saw staff using respectful communication, protecting privacy and dignity, and encouraging independence.
“People told us the staff treated them with respect and kindness.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans included people's hobbies, interests, preferences and life histories. Staff supported people to take part in activities and pursue their interests.
“People received care that was personalised and responsive to their needs.” from the report
Learning and oversight
The management team reviewed incidents and shortfalls, then used the findings to improve practice and share learning.
“The service had a quality assurance system and shortfalls were identified and addressed.” from the report
Care information was not always consistent
needs fixingInspectors found two examples where information for care staff did not match information for nurses. The manager corrected the care plans during the inspection, but families should check how this is now prevented.
“we found two examples of where the information for care staff and that for nurses about how to meet people's needs were not consistent.” from the report
Recent staffing changes
minorThe manager said recruitment had previously been difficult and the home had relied on agency staff. Inspectors found staffing was safe at the time, and the report says recruitment had improved.
“There has been several changes in the last year, different managers and staff. Lots of agency staff but things have settled down.” from the report
- 01How do you make sure care staff and nurses are working from the same, up-to-date care information?
- 02What is the current staffing level on each shift, and how often are agency staff used now?
- 03Has the manager's application to register with CQC been completed?
- 04What changes have been made following the review of menus and people's comments about food?
- 05How does the new system for keeping care records available during care work operate in practice?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering the home, the care provided and all five CQC key questions; the previous ratings were also reviewed. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 August 2018 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, September 2016
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, effective and responsive care, but safety needed improvement because of hazards and cleanliness shortfalls.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 August 2016. Two inspectors spoke with people living in the home, relatives, staff and a health professional. They also observed care and checked care records, medicines, recruitment, maintenance and quality records.
The overall rating was Good. Effective, caring, responsive and well-led were all rated Good. Inspectors found enough staff, good relationships, suitable training, individual care plans, support with food and drink, and access to health professionals.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found hazards that staff had not identified, along with problems with cleanliness, infection control, food storage and the storage of cleaning products. The manager acted on the concerns during the inspection, and inspectors recommended advice on maintaining the environment.
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs safely. Recruitment had also filled vacant nursing posts and created extra cover for absences.
“There were enough staff available to meet people's needs safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff built good relationships with people and treated them with respect. Inspectors saw unhurried, attentive care that supported privacy, dignity and choice.
“Staff were caring and compassionate and had developed good relationships with people living at the home and their families.” from the report
Food and health support
People were offered food and drink choices, and their nutritional needs were monitored. Staff involved dieticians and other health professionals when required.
“People were supported to have enough to eat and drink.” from the report
Improved leadership
Inspectors found better teamwork and continuity under the new manager. The home used audits, meetings and feedback to identify and address problems.
“Staff were working as a cohesive team, which supported the friendly and welcoming atmosphere.” from the report
Environmental hazards
seriousStaff did not always notice or report hazards. These included boxes in a corridor, very hot plates and unsafe storage of cleaning products.
“Staff had not identified the hazards linked to the temporary storing of boxes in a corridor, or serving meals on very hot plates which were potential hazards which could put people at risk.” from the report
Cleanliness and infection control
seriousInspectors found dirty equipment, dust and food debris, and unclean areas in the laundry, sluice room and kitchen. They recommended that the provider seek advice to reduce infection control risks.
“We found examples where equipment such as wheelchairs, walking frames, hoists and commodes had not been kept clean.” from the report
Food storage
needs fixingSome food in the fridge was not labelled or covered. This could make it harder to manage dates and prevent cross-contamination.
“For example, we found items in the fridge, which were not labelled or covered.” from the report
- 01What action was taken after the inspection to remove the hazards from corridors and prevent very hot plates being used?
- 02How are wheelchairs, hoists, commodes and walking frames cleaned, and how is this checked?
- 03What changes were made to the kitchen, laundry and sluice room after the cleanliness problems found by inspectors?
- 04How are fridge labelling, food covering and use-by or best-before dates checked now?
- 05How will you show that the improvements under the new manager have been maintained?
This was an unannounced inspection of the overall quality of the home and all five CQC questions, including observations, discussions and checks of care, staffing, medicines, maintenance and quality records. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 September 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 Aldringham Court
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- August 2018Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- May 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- August 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 23 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
23 live-in carers within about an hour of Suffolk
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 £1,260 a week. 17 can care for a couple. 7 years' experience on average.
“Not only was she professional, polite and efficient but she bought a lovely smile and laughter to my parents home.”
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.