CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Aria Court
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, February 2021
Inspected but not rated; inspectors were assured that infection control and outbreak measures were being followed.
This was an unannounced targeted inspection on 2 February 2021. It was carried out because of coronavirus outbreaks and focused on infection prevention and control.
Inspectors found good arrangements for testing, personal protective equipment, hand washing, cleaning, social distancing and visitors. People who had symptoms or positive results were supported with full protective equipment.
The home used separate communities and kept staff in set groups to limit movement. Staff had infection control training, and the manager carried out checks on protective equipment and infection control practices.
The home was inspected but not rated. This means the inspection did not give an overall quality rating or a rated result for the five questions.
Testing and protective equipment
Staff had temperature checks and regular testing. Visitors were asked to take a lateral flow test, and protective equipment was provided for staff and visitors.
“Staff were required to have their temperatures checked at the start of each shift, wash their hands and were part of a regular testing programme.” from the report
Managing infection risks
People with symptoms or positive results were supported by staff wearing full protective equipment. The home used clear signs and clinical bins to support safer isolation.
“All people showing signs or who had had a positive result were supported by staff who wore full PPE, this is called barrier nursing.” from the report
Staff training and checks
Staff received infection control training, including how to use protective equipment. Their practice was checked through competency assessments and regular audits.
“All staff received training in infection control and how to put on and remove their PPE.” from the report
Clean environment
Inspectors found the building clean and without clutter. High-touch areas such as door handles and handrails were cleaned regularly.
“The building looked clean and free from clutter.” from the report
Inspectors raised no specific concerns in this report.
- 01How are staff and visitors tested for COVID-19 now, and what happens when someone has a positive result?
- 02How are people supported during isolation, and how do you decide whether they want to receive visitors?
- 03How often are staff assessed on using personal protective equipment correctly?
- 04How do you keep staff working in separate communities and limit movement around the home?
- 05How often are infection control audits completed, and what happens when an audit identifies a problem?
This was an unannounced targeted inspection of infection prevention and control during coronavirus outbreaks; it did not give an overall rating or ratings for the other questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 27 February 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, August 2018
Rated Good overall, but inspectors found unsafe medicines record-keeping and moving and handling practice, so Safe Requires Improvement.
The inspection was unannounced and took place on 27 June and 20 July 2018. Four inspectors and an expert-by-experience spoke with people, relatives, staff and managers. They reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, training records, complaints and quality checks.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. Staffing levels were better, activities had improved, and people's privacy, dignity and involvement in care were supported. Inspectors also found kind care, good support with meals and healthcare, and good complaint handling.
However, medicines records were not always accurate. Inspectors also saw two staff use a moving and handling technique that could have harmed a person and the staff. They recommended further training and competency checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were rated Good. Safe was rated Requires Improvement, meaning inspectors found a safety shortfall that needed further improvement.
Improved staffing
Inspectors found enough staff with the right skills to meet people's needs promptly. This was an improvement since the previous inspection.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs in a timely manner.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff generally knew people well, treated them considerately and supported their privacy, dignity and independence.
“People were supported by kind staff who met their individual needs.” from the report
Activities
The home had increased the number and variety of activities. People could join group activities, trips and community links.
“Activities were arranged and people benefitted from these by having regular social stimulation.” from the report
Care monitoring
The home had quality checks in place and used them to identify actions for improvement.
“Quality assurance systems were in place which reviewed the quality and safety of people's care.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousSeveral medicines records contained discrepancies, including incorrect stock balances and gaps in administration records. This meant inspectors could not be sure that medicines had been given as prescribed.
“This meant staff had not followed the providers medicine policy and we could not be assured people had taken their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Moving and handling
seriousInspectors saw two staff move a person in a way that could have caused harm to the person and the staff. Further training and competency checks were recommended.
“We observed two staff move a person in a manner that could have caused the person and the staff harm.” from the report
Staff engagement
minorInspectors saw two staff in a communal lounge who did not engage with the people they were supporting. This was described as a missed opportunity.
“There were some missed opportunities where two staff did not engage with the people they were supporting.” from the report
- 01What checks are now in place to make sure medicines administration records and stock balances are accurate?
- 02How do you make sure every staff member is competent in moving and handling, including agency staff?
- 03What action was taken after the moving and handling incident mentioned in the report?
- 04How do staff make sure people receive regular conversation and engagement, as well as practical care?
- 05How have staffing levels and staff skills continued to improve since this inspection?
This was an unannounced inspection of all five CQC questions, covering care, treatment, the premises and how the home was run; it was brought forward because of concerns received by the CQC. This explanation was written from the published report of 25 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.
Every inspection of Aria Court
3 rated inspections over 2 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- February 2021Inspected but not ratedcurrent ratingSafe: Inspected but not rated
- August 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- November 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- January 2017Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2015
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 December 2015.
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
17 live-in carers within about an hour of Cambridgeshire
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 £1,200 a week. 14 can care for a couple. 12 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.