Aden House Care Home

Ratings

• Overall

  Requires improvement

• Safe

  Requires improvement

• Effective

  Requires improvement

• Caring

  Requires improvement

• Responsive

  Requires improvement

• Well-led

  Requires improvement

Our view of the service

Aden House is a care home providing personal care for up to 60 people, some of whom are living with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 24 people living at the service. The assessment commenced on 7 October 2024 and was completed on 21 October 2024. This included 2 visits to the service on 7 and 8 October 2024. We identified 3 continued breaches of regulation relating to person centred care, staffing and good governance. Some people’s care was not person-centred, there were not always enough staff to meet people’s needs effectively and quality assurance processes were not consistently effective in identifying and addressing areas requiring improvement. However, there were also areas where improvements had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of regulation in relation to safe care and treatment. People were safeguarded from abuse and avoidable harm and their medicines were safely managed. People had access to health professionals when required and the provider was working collaboratively with external stakeholders. Communal parts of the environment had improved and appeared more homely. People were supported by kind and caring staff who knew them well. This service has been in Special Measures since 11 August 2023. The provider demonstrated improvements that have been made. The service is no longer rated as inadequate overall or in any of the key questions. Therefore, this service is no longer in Special Measures.

People's experience of this service

People and relatives told us that the service was safe. They spoke positively about being cared for by staff who knew them well and were kind and caring. They had access to health professionals and appointments when needed. There was mixed feedback regarding people and relatives being involved in their care. We found that for some people care planning and reviews were not completed collaboratively and people’s preferences not always included. Most people told us they had to wait for their needs to be met by staff at times. People gave mixed feedback regarding staff seeking consent before providing care. For 1 person, Mental Capacity Act guidance and legislation had not been followed. Not all people got a choice about how they spent their day and some people were not offered meaningful activity and access to fresh air. People’s care was not always person-centred, and support was, at times, task orientated.