CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Aldyn Care Home
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Risks were identified, assessed and reduced, and medicines, infection control and staffing were managed safely. However, two recruitment files did not contain complete evidence about staff character checks before employment.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs and choices were assessed and staff had relevant training, including training about mental health conditions. People received support with food, healthcare and informed decision-making.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, dignity and respect. Staff supported relationships, independence, privacy and involvement in decisions about care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's current and changing needs. People had personalised activities, support to use the local community and help with communication.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had a friendly atmosphere and people and staff spoke positively about its management. Quality checks were used to identify issues, take action and learn from incidents.
What inspectors found, July 2019
Aldyn Care Home is rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and person-centred care, but staff recruitment checks were not always complete.
This was an unannounced, planned inspection on 14 May 2019. The inspector and an expert by experience spoke with nine people, the registered manager and two staff. They reviewed three people's care, observed daily life and checked records including medicines, incidents, complaints and recruitment.
The home was rated Good in all five areas: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. People were protected from known risks, received medicines safely and had enough staff support. Inspectors also found good support with health, food, activities, communication, independence and personal choices.
There was one area needing improvement. Two staff files did not show complete evidence that checks had been made about the staff members' character before they started work. The report says there was no impact on people. The previous overall rating was Requires Improvement, with multiple breaches, but the provider had made improvements and was no longer in breach.
Safe medicines
Medicines were given on time and inspectors found safe arrangements for receiving, storing, administering and disposing of them.
“The provider was following safe protocols for the receipt, storage, administration and disposal of medicines.” from the report
Kind relationships
Staff spent time listening and talking with people. Inspectors saw that people trusted staff and were treated respectfully.
“We observed positive interactions between people and staff and it was evident people trusted the staff that were supporting them.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans reflected people's changing needs, interests and choices. Staff helped people take part in activities and build confidence in the community.
“People had access to activities that met their interests and they were active in their local community.” from the report
Good management
The management team used audits and feedback to improve care. Staff said they felt supported and understood their responsibilities.
“Robust quality assurance systems and processes were in place to assess, monitor and improve the quality of the service being delivered.” from the report
Incomplete recruitment records
needs fixingTwo staff files did not show complete evidence that checks about staff character had been completed before those staff started work. The report says there was no impact on people, but describes this as needing improvement.
“Two staff files we reviewed did not provide assurances that the registered manager knew the staff were of good character before they worked with people.” from the report
- 01How do you now check references and staff character before a new member of staff starts work?
- 02How would you assess and update my relative's care plan if their mental health or other needs changed?
- 03What activities and community opportunities would be available for my relative based on their interests?
- 04How would you support my relative to make their own choices and maintain independence?
- 05How do you monitor medicines and respond if a medicine or health need changes?
This was an unannounced inspection covering all five key questions, including the premises and care; the previous Requires Improvement ratings had improved to Good at this inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 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, May 2018
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care and safe medicines, but gaps in risk assessments, person-centred care and records.
This was an unannounced inspection on the first day. Inspectors visited on 29 March and 2 April 2018, spoke with seven people and two staff, and reviewed care records, medicines, training, recruitment and quality checks.
The home remained Requires Improvement, the same overall rating as at the previous inspection. All five areas were rated Requires Improvement: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led.
Inspectors found that staff knew people well, were kind and responded quickly to changes in health. Medicines were given safely and people had access to health professionals. However, risks and care plans were not recorded clearly enough, some routines were restrictive, and management checks had not found these problems.
Kind staff
Staff were described as kind and compassionate. They knew people well and built positive relationships.
“Staff exhibited a kind and compassionate attitude towards people.” from the report
Safe medicines
People received medicines on time and records checked by inspectors were complete. Staff understood the medicines they gave.
“People received their medicines as prescribed, received them on time and understood what they were for.” from the report
Health support
Staff acted quickly when people's mental or physical health changed and involved relevant health professionals.
“Staff responded quickly when they noted changes to people's mental or physical well-being, contacting the appropriate health professionals” from the report
Staff training
Staff had received mental health training, induction and regular supervision. Recruitment checks were also in place.
“People were supported by a staff team that had received a comprehensive induction programme, training for mental health conditions and ongoing support” from the report
Risk records
seriousRisk assessments were incomplete or out of date and did not always explain what staff should do. The home also had an accessible upstairs window that could pose a self-harm risk.
“Risk management plans were limited and not always an accurate reflection of people's current risk.” from the report
Restrictive routines
seriousStaff did not always understand people's rights to make their own decisions. Set times for drinks, meals and other practices could be controlling where they were not supported by individual assessments.
“There were practices at the service which could be seen as restrictive and unnecessarily controlling.” from the report
Incomplete care plans
seriousCare plans did not always reflect people's current physical, mental, emotional or social needs. Changes were not always recorded promptly.
“Care records did not fully reflect people's physical, mental, emotional or social needs.” from the report
Food and meal times
needs fixingPeople generally liked the food, but choices were not always offered proactively and fixed meal times could leave people waiting for food.
“People enjoyed the food at Aldyn however meal choice and times required improvement.” from the report
Management checks
needs fixingQuality checks had not identified weaknesses in risk management and care records. The home's approach was not always person-centred or empowering.
“Quality assurance systems and governance processes required enhancing to ensure all regulations were met.” from the report
- 01How have you updated risk assessments and care plans for self-harm, falls, choking, fire-setting and physical health risks?
- 02What has changed so people can make their own decisions about drinks, food, cigarettes and other daily routines?
- 03How do you check that care plans are updated promptly when people's needs change?
- 04What action was taken about the upstairs bathroom window and any possible ligature points?
- 05How are people now offered flexible meal times, food choices and snacks?
This was a comprehensive inspection covering all five CQC questions; the report also says it was unannounced on the first day and that the previous overall rating was Requires Improvement. This explanation was written from the published report of 31 May 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.
Every inspection of Aldyn Care Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- July 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2018Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- October 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 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 3 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
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.