Aran Court Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

The provider’s complaints system was not effective and they had failed to follow their own complaints process. The provider had failed to maintain a record of all complaints received, the outcomes of these and actions taken in response to complaints. There was no analysis of complaints over time which would identify any potential trends and areas of risk that would need to be addressed. This was a breach of Regulation 16 (Receiving and acting on complaints) of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. Although most people told us they had some involvement in the development of their care plans and told us staff knew them well, care records seen lacked person-centred detail regarding people’s likes, dislikes and their life history. Work was planned to address this but, at the time of the assessment, a cohesive plan was not in place to co-ordinate this piece of work.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We received mixed responses from people when we asked if they were involved in the planning and review of their care. One person told us they were fully involved in their pre-assessment and that they went over everything again when they came into the home. Their relative told us, “They [care staff] did ask everything before, but [relative] changes their mind and it depends on how they feel. They [care staff] are getting to know them.” This experience was not reflective of everyone we spoke with and others told us they had little or no involvement in their care plan. For example, for 1 person, we found their file simply stated ‘no information found’ with regard to their likes and dislikes and there was no evidence to demonstrate that action had been taken to address this.

Staff were able to explain how they supported people and understood their support needs. However, we found this information was not always reflected in people's care plans which meant people were at risk of receiving inconsistent levels of care and support, as each member of staff’s understanding of how to support a person was slightly different. For example, one member of staff provided very specific details on how to support a person who could become extremely anxious. They were aware of the triggers to these episodes and actions to take alleviate the symptoms for the person. However, the information they shared was not written in the person’s care plan and risk assessment. We raised these concerns with the management team during the assessment. We were advised staff had very recently completed person-centred care training. We were told life story work was also being planned and this information would be used to inform people’s care plans. We asked if a plan had been put in place to manage the collection and sharing of this information. The manager confirmed a plan of action had not been put in place at that point to oversee this and envisaged it would take 2 months for the work to be completed.

We observed staff respond to people in a way that demonstrated they knew people well.

We did not look at Care provision, Integration and continuity during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

Most people and their relatives told us they were confident if they raised any concerns or complaints they would be listened to. However, not everyone spoken with felt this way. For example, 1 family’s complaint, which was raised in January 2024, was still outstanding at the time of the assessment. Action was not taken in a timely manner to address the concerns raised and reassure the family. The provider had failed to follow their own complaints procedure. This placed the service user and staff at potential risk of harm. Another relative advised they had previously raised complaints and had either felt ignored or not listened to. A ‘resident survey’ completed by 21 people had recently taken place. Two areas of concern were raised and action was taken in response to these. It was suggested these actions were added to the provider’s existing action plan to monitor compliance and also check the actions taken were successful. It was acknowledged further work was required to obtain independent feedback from all people, including those who did not attend meetings.

Staff told us they would listen to people via ‘resident of the day’ reviews which included obtaining people’s feedback of the service. ‘Residents meetings’ also took place which were led by the ‘resident’s ambassador’ which enabled people to raise their concerns about the service and their care.

The provider’s complaints system was not effective and they had failed to follow their own complaints processes. The provider had failed to maintain a record of all complaints, outcomes and actions taken in response to these. For example, the provider had failed to ensure appropriate action was taken without delay in response to failures identified in a complaint that was raised in January 2024. The provider had failed to keep the complainant informed of the status of their complaint and its investigation. There was no analysis of complaints that would identify any potential trends and opportunities to learn lessons were lost. More work was needed to ensure all service users were given the opportunity to share their feedback and ideas, particularly those who were unable to attend residents’ meetings.

We did not look at Equity in access during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.

People told us they felt staff knew them well, but experiences were mixed on the extent to which they were involved in the planning and review of their care. People were supported to access care, treatment and support when they needed.

Staff were alert to discrimination and inequality that could disadvantage different groups of people in accessing care, treatment and support.

There was a lack of signage throughout the building to help people orientate to their surroundings. Action was being taken to address this.

We did not look at Planning for the future during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Responsive.