CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Aston Court Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- People did not always receive help quickly enough. Inspectors found significant delays in call bell responses and said staffing levels were not always sufficient or suitably deployed.
- Effective?
- Good
- The report does not give a rating or detailed findings for this question in this inspection.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness and respect. Staff promoted people's privacy, independence and involvement in decisions about their care.
- Responsive?
- Good
- The report does not give a rating or detailed findings for this question in this inspection.
- Well-led?
- Requires improvement
- Management checks had not identified all the problems found by inspectors. The home had not had enough oversight of people's care needs, staffing requirements and the condition of some bathrooms.
What inspectors found, January 2023
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind care, but staffing delays and weak checks meant people were not always safe.
Two inspectors made an unannounced visit on 25 November 2022. They looked around the home, spoke with people, relatives, staff and a visiting health professional, and checked care records, medicines, staff files and management records.
The main safety concern was staffing. People sometimes waited 15 to 20 minutes for help after pressing their call bell. There were also concerns about the high use of agency staff and whether staff knew people's needs well enough.
The home was clean overall, but some ground floor bathrooms had damaged tiles, peeling paint, bare plaster or uneven grout. Medicines, safeguarding, risk assessments, consent and infection control were otherwise found to be managed safely in the areas checked.
The caring rating improved from Requires Improvement to Good. However, Safe and Well-led remained Requires Improvement. The overall rating remained Requires Improvement, and the provider was still in breach of the governance regulation and had a new breach relating to staffing.
Kind and respectful care
People and relatives described staff as kind, caring, warm and friendly. Staff promoted people's dignity, privacy and independence.
“People were treated with kindness and respect and their independence and privacy were promoted.” from the report
Medicines managed safely
Inspectors found that medicines were stored and ordered correctly. Staff were trained and checked as competent to administer them.
“Medicines were managed safely and people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Improved support with eating and drinking
The provider had acted on an earlier concern about people not eating and drinking enough. Inspectors found improvements at this inspection.
“At this inspection we found improvements had been made.” from the report
People's independence supported
People could access dining rooms when they wished, use walking aids and eat independently with suitable equipment.
“We observed improvement as the doors to the dining rooms were open at all times and people could access these rooms when they wished.” from the report
Delays in answering call bells
seriousPeople sometimes waited 15 to 20 minutes for staff to respond. Inspectors found recorded delays of more than 10 minutes and said staffing levels did not meet people's needs consistently.
“Evidence we gathered showed at times people had to wait 15 to 20 minutes for staff to respond to their call bell.” from the report
Not enough suitable staff
seriousThere were not always enough permanent or experienced staff. The high use of agency staff meant some workers did not know people's support needs well.
“Due to staffing levels there were not always enough experienced staff suitably deployed to meet people's needs and to keep them safe.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousGovernance systems had not identified important problems, including staffing pressures, unsuitable assessments of people's needs and bathroom and laundry issues.
“Governance systems were not entirely effective as they had not identified all issues found at this inspection.” from the report
Bathroom repairs needed
needs fixingSome ground floor bathrooms had missing tiles, peeling paint, bare or untreated sections and uneven grout. Inspectors said these problems could make effective cleaning harder.
“All of these issues could hamper effective cleaning needed to prevent a build up of dirt and bacteria.” from the report
- 01What are the current average and longest call bell response times, and how are delays recorded and reviewed?
- 02How many permanent, agency and experienced staff are on each shift, and how is this matched to residents' care needs?
- 03What action has been completed from the CQC action plan for the Regulation 18 staffing breach?
- 04How are assessments checked before people with high dependency needs are admitted?
- 05Have the bathroom and laundry repairs identified by inspectors been completed, and how are they now checked?
This was an unannounced inspection to review previous concerns, with detailed findings and ratings for Safe, Caring and Well-led; the report says ratings for key questions not inspected carried over from the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 17 January 2023 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, March 2020
Aston Court Care Home was rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found kind, personalised care, but delays in responding and weak monitoring created safety and dignity concerns.
This was an unannounced inspection on 11 February 2020. Inspectors spoke with eight people, two relatives and six staff. They observed care and checked care records, medicine records, staff files and management records.
The home was rated Good for Effective and Responsive. People had personalised care, suitable staff training, support with food and healthcare, activities and access to a complaints process.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Safe, Caring and Well-led. People sometimes waited too long for help, and records did not reliably show that skin creams, fluids, air mattress pressures and call bell response times were monitored properly. People were kind to residents, but dignity and independence were not always promoted.
The overall rating fell from Good at the previous inspection, published in October 2017. The provider breached Regulation 17, Good Governance. The report says the provider put new monitoring systems in place after the inspection.
Skilled staff
Staff had the training, supervision and skills needed to support people, including people with complex needs.
“People were supported by staff who had received the necessary training to fulfil their role.” from the report
Personalised care
Care plans included people's likes, dislikes, history and preferences. Staff were able to describe how people preferred to receive care.
“People received personalised care from staff that knew them well.” from the report
Healthcare support
The home worked with other professionals and supported people to access services such as opticians, dentists and podiatry.
“People received support to manage their healthcare needs.” from the report
Activities and social contact
People were supported to take part in activities they chose, including one-to-one time, exercise classes and entertainment.
“People were supported by dedicated staff who involved them in activities of their choice, this included one to one time, exercise classes and entertainment within the home.” from the report
Delays in care
seriousPeople sometimes waited a long time for help after pressing their call bell. Inspectors said this may have left people unsafe and affected their dignity.
“People told us they waited too long to receive care when it was needed.” from the report
Weak monitoring
seriousChecks did not reliably identify problems with call bell waiting times, skin cream records, fluid monitoring and air mattress pressures. This was linked to the breach of Regulation 17.
“We found no evidence that people had been harmed however, systems were either not in place or robust enough to demonstrate safety was effectively managed.” from the report
Dignity and independence
needs fixingPeople were not always treated with dignity and some were made to wait in a hallway before entering the dining room, rather than being supported to choose where to sit.
“People did not always have their independence encouraged.” from the report
- 01How quickly are call bells now answered, and how do you check for and investigate long waits?
- 02How do you record and audit the application of prescribed skin creams?
- 03How do you monitor people's fluid intake when they need this support?
- 04How often are air mattress pressures checked and recorded?
- 05What has changed to help people maintain their dignity and choose where and when they sit for meals?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 28 March 2020 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 Aston Court Care Home
6 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Requires improvement rating throughout.
- January 2023Requires improvementcurrent ratingstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- March 2020Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- October 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- April 2016Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- February 2016Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvement
- June 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- December 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- October 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- June 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- November 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 15 November 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
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Staffordshire
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 £980 to £1,230 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“We particularly appreciate the companionship Dawn gives in the evenings when she plays cards and Scrabble with my mother.”
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.