CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Aston House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Requires improvement
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicine records and improved fire safety. However, risk assessments for flammable creams were missing and cleaning records were not sufficiently detailed.
- Effective?
- Good
- People were supported with decision-making, food and drink, training, healthcare and healthy living. Some recording about food and fluids was inconsistent.
- Caring?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this focused inspection, so there is no current rating in this report.
- Responsive?
- Good
- This question was not covered by this focused inspection, so there is no current rating in this report.
- Well-led?
- Good
- Inspectors found effective checks, audits and action following the previous inspection. Relatives and staff said communication was good and the home was well run.
What inspectors found, June 2023
Rated Good overall; inspectors found kind, effective care, but the Safe rating Requires Improvement because some risks and cleaning records were not fully managed.
This was a focused inspection on 10 May 2023. One inspector met three people, spoke with relatives and staff, and checked care plans, medicine records, audits and recruitment documents.
The home supported five people with learning disabilities and autism. Inspectors found that people received person-centred care, were treated with dignity, and were supported to make choices, stay healthy and take part in activities.
The Safe rating remained Requires Improvement. Risk assessments for flammable creams were missing, and cleaning records did not clearly show what had been cleaned, how often or by whom. Some food and drink recording was also inconsistent.
The Effective and Well-led ratings were Good. The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection because the provider had made enough progress and was no longer in breach of the regulations previously identified.
Enough staff
Inspectors found enough staff to meet people's needs and keep them safe. Relatives also said staffing levels were good.
“There were enough staff working at the service to meet people's needs and keep them safe.” from the report
Choice and independence
People were supported to make decisions, live as independently as possible, and follow their hobbies and interests.
“People were supported to carry out their daily living activities and pursue their hobbies and interests.” from the report
Good leadership systems
The home had improved its checks and audits after the previous inspection. Relatives and staff reported good communication and support.
“Systems and processes were now in place and effective to ensure that all areas of the service were checked and monitored.” from the report
Medicines
Trained staff administered medicines and the medicine administration records checked by inspectors were accurate. Audits were used to find errors or omissions.
“Medicines were administered by staff who were trained to do so.” from the report
Flammable cream risks
seriousRisk assessments had not been completed for flammable creams. Inspectors said this increased the risk of burns, although the manager said this would be addressed immediately.
“Risk assessments were not completed to support the safe management of flammable creams. This meant that people were at increased risk of burns.” from the report
Cleaning records
needs fixingThe home did not have a clear record showing which cleaning tasks were needed, how often they should happen or who had completed them.
“There was not a clear and detailed cleaning record in place, to show specifically what cleaning tasks were required, at what frequency, and who had completed them.” from the report
Food and drink records
minorSome records about food and fluids were inconsistent. One person's care plan conflicted with the daily records, and the manager said this would be corrected.
“People were well supported with food and fluids, although some recording in this area was inconsistent.” from the report
- 01Have risk assessments now been completed for everyone using flammable creams, and how are staff following them?
- 02What new cleaning record is now being used, and who checks that all required tasks have been completed?
- 03How have the inconsistent food and fluid records been corrected and checked?
- 04Who is currently responsible for managing the home, and what is the progress with registering the deputy manager?
- 05What were the previous Caring and Responsive ratings, and what has changed in those areas since the last comprehensive inspection?
This was a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led, with infection prevention and control also considered; Caring and Responsive were not inspected and their previous ratings were used in calculating the overall rating. This explanation was written from the published report of 13 June 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, May 2022
Rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found risks involving fire safety, medicines, infection control, consent and management oversight.
Inspectors visited on 3 and 10 February 2022. They spoke with two people using the home, three relatives and staff. They reviewed care, medicines, recruitment, training and management records.
The home was not always safe. Inspectors found problems with fire equipment and escape routes, environmental risks such as exposed hot water pipes, incomplete medicines records, and weaknesses in infection control and cleaning.
The home was also not always effective or well-led. Mental capacity assessments and applications for legal safeguards had not been completed properly or on time. Audits, policies, staff supervision and training records had not given managers enough oversight.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe, Effective and Well-led were each rated Requires Improvement. These ratings had fallen from Good at the previous inspection, published on 17 April 2020. The provider started some improvements immediately after this inspection.
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to meet people's needs, including for people requiring one-to-one or two-to-one support.
“There were enough staff to meet people's needs.” from the report
Kind and knowledgeable staff
Relatives said people felt safe and staff were kind and caring. Inspectors also found staff knew people's health and social care needs well.
“Relatives told us they felt people were safe and staff were kind, caring and knew people and their needs well.” from the report
Food and drink choices
People were supported to choose food and drinks, take part in kitchen activities and access snacks when they wanted them.
“People were well supported with food and drink.” from the report
Healthcare support
People had access to health screening, dentistry, doctors and pharmacy support. Staff understood people's health needs and what to do in an emergency.
“People had access to regular NHS health screening checks and dentistry.” from the report
Family involvement
Relatives received regular updates and were involved in care discussions. People's communication needs were assessed and supported using tools such as picture boards and objects of reference.
“Relatives felt included as partners in their relative's care.” from the report
Fire and environmental risks
seriousEmergency lighting was not working, fire exit keys were not easily accessible and a fire escape was covered with leaves and moss. Exposed hot water pipes, damaged radiator covers and unsuitable window locks also increased risks.
“This meant people were at risk of not being able to evacuate safely in the event of a fire.” from the report
Medicines records
seriousSome medicines were not managed in line with guidance. Records did not always explain why medicines prescribed for use when needed had been given, and risk assessments for flammable creams were missing.
“Medicines were not consistently managed safely and in line with best practice guidance.” from the report
Infection control and cleanliness
seriousCOVID-19 testing, clinical waste arrangements and cleaning records did not consistently follow guidance or the home's own policies. Inspectors found some bathroom areas visibly unclean.
“People were not always protected from the risk of infection.” from the report
Consent and legal safeguards
seriousMental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions were not consistently recorded. Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications had expired before being renewed, putting people at risk of being deprived of their liberty without legal authority.
“This meant people were at risk of being deprived of their liberty without the legal authority in place for the provider to do so.” from the report
Management oversight
seriousAudits had not identified outdated care records or environmental risks. Policies were not always up to date or available, and some staff supervision and refresher training were overdue.
“Systems and processes had not been effective in maintaining oversight of the safety and quality of the service.” from the report
- 01What fire safety repairs and improvements have been completed, and when were they checked?
- 02How are medicines given when needed recorded now, including the reason for giving them?
- 03Have mental capacity assessments and best-interest decisions been completed for every relevant decision?
- 04Are all Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards applications current and legally authorised?
- 05How do managers now check cleaning, infection control, care records, staff supervision and refresher training?
This was initially a targeted infection prevention and control inspection but was widened to a focused inspection of Safe, Effective and Well-led; Caring and Responsive were not assessed. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 May 2022 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 House
5 rated inspections over 8 years: the service has held its Good rating throughout.
- June 2023Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- May 2022Requires improvementdown from GoodSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- April 2020Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2017Goodstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2015GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- May 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2011
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 14 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
89 live-in carers within about an hour of North Northamptonshire
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 £1,260 a week. 76 can care for a couple. 12 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
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.