Attention: The information on this website is currently out of date and should not be relied upon..

Care Services

carehome, nursing and medical services directory


Aaron Court Care Home, Exeter.

Aaron Court Care Home in Exeter is a Residential home specialising in the provision of services relating to accommodation for persons who require nursing or personal care and caring for adults over 65 yrs. The last inspection date here was 11th March 2020

Aaron Court Care Home is managed by Salisbury Care Limited.

Contact Details:

    Address:
      Aaron Court Care Home
      328 Pinhoe Road
      Exeter
      EX4 8AS
      United Kingdom
    Telephone:
      0

Ratings:

For a guide to the ratings, click here.

Safe: Good
Effective: Good
Caring: Good
Responsive: Good
Well-Led: Good
Overall: Good

Further Details:

Important Dates:

    Last Inspection 2020-03-11
    Last Published 2017-08-01

Local Authority:

    Devon

Link to this page:

    HTML   BBCode

Inspection Reports:

Click the title bar on any of the report introductions below to read the full entry. If there is a PDF icon, click it to download the full report.

23rd May 2017 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 23 May 2017. The previous inspection of the home was carried out on 7 and 11 January 2016 where we found breaches of regulations. These related to safe care and treatment and safeguarding service users from abuse and improper treatment. The service was rated as ‘requires improvement’ and the provider was required to submit an action plan explaining what they were doing to meet the legal requirement to improve the service. We carried out this inspection on 23 May 2017 to check whether these improvements had been made and rated the service ‘good’.

Aaron Court is registered to provide accommodation for 24 people who require personal care. At the time of the inspection there were 20 people living at the home.

There is a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

The registered manager had kept us informed about progress towards achieving the provider’s action plan, and we found some improvements in the areas requiring improvement since the last inspection. However, we also identified some areas for further improvement. At the last inspection in January 2016 we found people’s rights were not always protected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Staff did not have an understanding of the MCA or how the principles applied to their practice. People’s capacity to make particular decisions had not always been assessed and documented, or a best interest process followed. In addition, people had not been referred for assessment under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS). This meant, at that time, they were potentially being deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment without being assessed to determine if this was in their best interests and legally authorised under the MCA.

At this inspection in May 2017 we found applications had been made for people to be cared for under DoLS where appropriate. Staff understanding of the MCA had improved significantly following training, and records showed that people’s capacity had been assessed and decisions made in their best interest where appropriate. However, we found further learning was required regarding the protection of people’s legal rights when they did not have capacity to consent to the use of a pressure pad to alert staff of their movements, for example if they were at risk of falls. Although the use of a pressure alert pad is a measure to keep people safe it is seen as a restriction of people’s free movement and requires a best interest decision making process. We have made a recommendation that the service seeks support and further training to enable them to consolidate and build on their knowledge of the MCA and ensure people’s legal rights are fully protected.

At the last inspection we identified that risk assessments, care plans and reviews were not up to date, which meant staff did not have access to accurate written information about potential risks or the actions they must take to reduce those risks. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and there were systems in place to ensure risk assessments, care plans and reviews were comprehensive, current, and supported staff to provide safe care. Care plans were reviewed every week by the person and their keyworker, and formally once a month. However, relatives had not always been involved in the formal reviews of their family member’s care plan, although the service kept them informed about the welfare of their family member. We discussed this with the registered manager, who, by the second day of the inspection had written to all relatives inviting them “to be more involved in the care planning process” if they wished.

7th January 2016 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

This inspection was unannounced and took place on 7 and 11 January 2016.

Aaron Court is registered to provide accommodation for 24 people who require personal care. At the time of the inspection there were 19 people living at the home.

The last inspection of the home was carried out on 2 October 2013. No concerns were identified with the care being provided to people at that inspection.

There is a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. Everybody was very complimentary about the registered manager. Staff told us, “I couldn’t have a better boss.”

At the time of the inspection, the service was recovering from a period of staff sickness and movement. To promote continuity of care during this time, existing staff had provided cover on overtime. The priority for the service had been providing the care, rather than completing the paperwork. This meant there was a risk that people may not receive safe care, because risk assessments, care plans and reviews were not up to date. Risks were minimised because existing staff knew people well. However, staff were being recruited and new people were moving into the home, so clear information and guidance was essential to enable staff to understand and meet their needs.

Staff had received training in fire safety, fire checks and drills were carried out in accordance with fire regulations and the fire system had been recently updated. People did not have individual fire risk assessments or a personal emergency evacuation plan (PEEP) to show what support they would need; however following the inspection the service hired a ‘Fire Protection’ company to implement the required change.

There was no documentation in place to support a best interest decision making process where people lacked the capacity to make an informed decision. This meant people’s human rights were not being fully protected under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). Some people at the service were subject to continuous supervision and control, not free to leave, and lacked capacity to consent to these arrangements. They therefore required an assessment under the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards, to determine whether this was in their best interests, but a DoLS application had not yet been made. These issues were being followed up by the registered manager. Training had been arranged to help staff to understand the legislation and use it in their practice to ensure people’s rights are protected.

Although new staff were still being recruited, there were enough staff deployed to meet the needs of people at the service and to care for them safely. They worked closely with health and social care professionals, and feedback from the professionals was positive. For example, the chef was proactive in seeking specialist advice, and worked alongside health professionals to ensure people’s nutritional needs were met as they changed.

People told us they felt safe. They were protected from the risk of abuse through the provision of policies, procedures and staff training, and an effective recruitment process. Systems were in place to ensure people received their medicines safely.

Staff promoted people’s independence and treated them with dignity and respect. One person told us, “There is nothing that I would improve, there is everything I want. I love it here, the staff are so nice and kind and friendly. They are all lovely”. People were supported to make choices about their day to day lives, such as what to wear and how they wanted to spend their time.

People’s relatives said they were made welcome and encouraged to visit the home as often as they wished. They said the service was good at keeping them info

2nd October 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Our inspection was unannounced and lasted approximately seven hours. There were 20 people living at the home. We met with ten people and spoke with seven people about their experiences of living at Aaron Court. We also spoke with three staff members and the registered manager. We looked at a selection of care records, staff rotas and staff training. During this visit, we inspected five outcome areas; all were compliant.

People told us they were happy living at Aaron Court and praised the staff team. For example, one person said “I wouldn’t wish to be anywhere else”. People’s privacy and dignity was respected by a stable and experienced staff. People’s health and well-being was assessed, and care was provided in a way that suited people's individual needs.

Staff offered people choice, and treated people with kindness and respect. Care and support was offered to people in a friendly, cheerful and professional manner. The home was well maintained and meet the needs of the people living there. Staffing levels met people’s current needs. Training was promoted to ensure staff skills were based on best and safe practice.

18th March 2013 - During a routine inspection pdf icon

Aaron Court had a change of ownership in November 2012. There was understandably some anxiety but we were told that "The new owners seem not so bad." and "They are based in London. There is no real change at all; the day to day running is just the same."

People chose to move into Aaron Court. Some had their families help them to find the right place to move to. Everyone we spoke with told us that they liked living at Aaron Court. One person said "It's as near to your own home as you can get." They told us that they enjoyed trips out. "Sometimes she (the activities co-ordinator) takes me to see my friend."

We inspected the way the home manages the administration of medication and found that this was done safely and competently by properly trained staff. We looked at staffing and saw that the home took proper precautions to ensure that they only employed people who were suitable for the role.

We looked at the home’s policies and procedures and found that they were up to date and fit for purpose. We spoke to people about any complaints they may have and were told "I have no complaints whatsoever..."

We found Aaron Court offered a range of activities that interested and stimulated those who chose to participate. We saw that Aaron Court provided a safe and supported environment for those who preferred to mainly stay in their rooms.

 

 

Latest Additions: