CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Aran Court Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, August 2021
Aran Court Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found good basic care but important weaknesses in safety checks and management.
This was an unannounced focused inspection on 26 and 27 May 2021. Inspectors looked only at Safe and Well-led because of concerns about safeguarding incidents. They spoke with people, relatives and staff, observed care, and checked care records, medicines, staffing and management systems.
People were generally protected from abuse, there were enough staff, recruitment checks were completed and infection control arrangements were suitable. Medicines were given as prescribed. However, sharps were not always managed safely, one medicine cabinet was not locked and care records did not always show that agreed risk measures were followed.
The home was also not consistently well managed. Audits had missed some of the problems, care reviews were not being done with people or relatives, and feedback was not being collected. The overall rating remained Requires Improvement, as it had at the previous inspection in 2019. The Safe rating fell from Good to Requires Improvement, while Well-led stayed at Requires Improvement.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs. The home also used a consistent staff team and checked staffing needs individually.
“There were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Safeguarding awareness
Staff had safeguarding training and knew how to report concerns. People and relatives said staff helped maintain people's safety.
“The provider had safeguarding systems in place and staff had a good understanding of what to do to make sure people were protected from avoidable harm or abuse.” from the report
Infection control
Inspectors were assured that the home had suitable arrangements for preventing and managing infection, including testing and safe admissions.
“We were assured that the provider was meeting shielding and social distancing rules.” from the report
Positive staff support
Staff said they felt valued, supported and able to raise concerns with managers. Staff meetings gave them opportunities to suggest improvements.
“The team meetings give us an opportunity to express our opinions and make suggestions for improvement.” from the report
Sharps were not managed safely
seriousSeveral sharps containers were not signed when put into use and were not disposed of promptly when full. Inspectors said this increased the risk of contamination.
“We found several sharps containers were not signed for when brought into use and not disposed of when full within a timely manner.” from the report
Medicine storage was not secure
seriousStock medicine in one medicine room was kept behind doors that were not locked. The problem was corrected on the inspection day, but the home's audits had not found it.
“There was a suitable lock attached to the doors however this was not being used and the doors were held closed by a rubber band.” from the report
Care records were incomplete
needs fixingRecords did not always show changes in people's health or prove that agreed risk measures had been followed. Inspectors gave an example involving repositioning and skin damage risk.
“We found care records reviewed did not always have relevant information in order to confirm when changes occurred to people's health conditions.” from the report
Care reviews and feedback were missing
needs fixingReviews were not being completed with people, relatives or legal representatives. Surveys and other attempts to gather views had not been carried out.
“We found reviews of care were not being undertaken with people, relatives or their legal representatives.” from the report
- 01What has been changed to make sure sharps containers are signed, stored safely and disposed of promptly?
- 02How do you now ensure all stock medicines are kept in locked cabinets?
- 03How do you check that care records accurately show changes in health and that risk assessments are being followed?
- 04How often are care reviews held with residents and relatives, and how are their views recorded?
- 05What recent audits or checks show that the problems identified by the CQC have been put right?
This was an unannounced focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 10 August 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.
What inspectors found, June 2019
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but improvements were still needed in effectiveness and management.
This was an unannounced inspection on 25 April 2019, followed by a return visit on 30 April. Inspectors spoke with people living there, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care records, staff records and records about quality and management.
The overall rating remained Requires Improvement, the same as at the previous inspection. Safe, caring and responsive were rated Good. Effective and well-led remained Requires Improvement.
Inspectors found that people were generally safe, treated with dignity and supported to make choices. Staff supported activities, healthcare and personalised care. However, improvements were needed in medicines records, staff understanding of DoLS, dementia-friendly design, food choices, accessible information and care and handover records.
The home had an improvement plan and inspectors saw some changes during the visit. The provider had changed the management team and appointed a new registered manager, but inspectors said further improvement was still needed.
Safety and safeguarding
Inspectors found enough staff during the visit, safe recruitment and effective safeguarding systems. Staff knew what to do if they suspected abuse.
“The provider had effective safeguarding systems in place and all the staff we spoke with had a good understanding of what to do to make sure people were protected from harm or abuse.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind and respectful. Staff supported privacy, dignity and independence.
“People told us they were treated with dignity and respect.” from the report
Activities had improved
People, relatives and staff reported better activities. Inspectors saw people enjoying a range of activities, including entertainment and community-related activities.
“People, relatives and staff all told us there had been an improvement in the activities provided and we saw people enjoyed a range of activities.” from the report
Support with health needs
Staff knew people's healthcare needs and when to seek outside help. People said they had been supported to see healthcare professionals.
“People told us they had been supported to see healthcare professionals such as the GP, dentist and optician.” from the report
DoLS understanding
needs fixingStaff had received relevant training but were not clear about their responsibilities under DoLS or what this meant for individual people. Further training was planned.
“However, staff we spoke with were not clear about their role and responsibilities with regards to DoLS and what this meant for individual people.” from the report
Medicines records
needs fixingPeople said they received medicines on time, but insulin records did not always show when insulin was given. The management team said this would be addressed immediately.
“We found that insulin records could be improved to record the time that insulin was given.” from the report
Meals and choices
needs fixingPeople gave mixed feedback about the menu. On the first inspection day, some people were not told what the meal choices were and made choices they did not enjoy.
“This meant that some people made choices that they then didn't enjoy.” from the report
Dementia support and information
needs fixingThe dementia programme and improved signage were not fully in place. Menus and activity information also needed to be available in more accessible formats.
“However, we found improvements could be made in the unit for people living with dementia to support people's orientation.” from the report
Records and handovers
needs fixingCare records did not always clearly show people's involvement, and handover information was inconsistent between the two units. New processes were being introduced.
“However, we did note there was an inconsistency handover information across the homes two units.” from the report
Access security
needs fixingOn the first inspection day, inspectors were allowed into the home without staff checking why they had arrived. The provider said security should have been better managed and took steps to improve it.
“On the first day of the inspection the inspection team were given access to the home without staff checking the purpose of our visit.” from the report
- 01What changes have been completed to record insulin administration times?
- 02What further DoLS training have staff received, and how do they know the requirements for each person?
- 03Has the dementia programme, including improved signage and orientation support, now been fully introduced?
- 04How are residents now told clearly about each meal option, and how are menu preferences collected?
- 05What new system is being used to make care records and handover information consistent across both units?
This was an unannounced, planned inspection of the care and premises, followed by a return visit; inspectors spoke with eight people and seven relatives and reviewed seven care records, two staff records and management records. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 June 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 Aran Court Care Home
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- August 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- June 2019Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2018Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2016
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 December 2016.
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 Birmingham
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 £950 to £1,230 a week. 79 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“God doesn't make people like her anymore!”
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
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.