We carried out a review of the data available to us about Aahana House on 6 July 2023. We have not found evidence that we need to carry out an inspection or reassess our rating at this stage.
This could change at any time if we receive new information. We will continue to monitor data about this service.
If you have concerns about Aahana House, you can give feedback on this service.
People's experience of using this service and what we found
People experienced care that took into account their individual risk factors to keep them safe during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Most people said they felt safe. Although one person did not, the provider was taking action to address the areas they were concerned about. This included regularly communicating information to people about how to stay safe and to keep others safe. Staff reminded people to wear masks and observe social distancing rules.
People who tested positive for COVID-19 received appropriate support and remained isolated in their rooms.
Where people did not comply with rules and guidelines to keep people safe, the provider took action to keep others safe. In one case, this had meant a person had moved to more suitable accommodation.
Staff received appropriate training in infection prevention and control. They maintained a thorough cleaning regime to keep the home clean and hygienic.
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 25 October 2019).
Why we inspected
We undertook this targeted inspection to check on a specific concern we had about how the service was managing an outbreak of COVID-19. The overall rating for the service has not changed following this
targeted inspection and remains good.
CQC have introduced targeted inspections to follow up on Warning Notices or to check specific concerns.
They do not look at an entire key question, only the part of the key question we are specifically concerned about. Targeted inspections do not change the rating from the previous inspection. This is because they do not assess all areas of a key question.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our reinspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
Further information is in the detailed findings below.
Aahana House is a residential care home providing personal care and rehabilitation support to 13 people with mental health support needs at the time of the inspection. The service can support up to 13 people.
People’s experience of using this service and what we found
The service was safe because the provider assessed and managed risks appropriately, including risks related to behaviour that challenged the service. The provider responded appropriately to incidents and used lessons they learned from these to improve safety standards. There were enough staff to care for people safely. The provider carried out checks to ensure the premises were safe, clean and suitably adapted to meet people’s needs. Staff understood how to safeguard people from abuse. Medicines were managed safely.
The provider assessed people’s needs and delivered care in line with best practice guidance. They sought advice and support from other agencies when needed to meet people’s needs, including healthcare needs. People had access to a choice of nutritious food, although some people felt the quality of the food could be improved. Staff received appropriate support, including a thorough induction and regular meetings to discuss their work and performance. Staff received a variety of training relevant to their roles but some people felt staff were not knowledgeable about their mental health conditions.
We have made a recommendation about staff training.
People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice.
The service had a person-centred culture and people felt confident to approach the registered manager and raise any concerns or suggestions they wanted to discuss. Staff encouraged people to speak up about discrimination. The provider worked with people, staff and external agencies to assess the quality of the service and make improvements when needed.
For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk
Rating at last inspection
The last rating for this service was good (published 10 April 2019).
Why we inspected
We received concerns in relation to the management of risks arising from behaviour that challenged the service, safety of the environment and whether staff had the knowledge and skills they needed to support people using the service. As a result, we undertook a focused inspection to review the Key Questions of Safe, Effective and Well-led only.
We reviewed the information we held about the service. No areas of concern were identified in the other Key Questions. We therefore did not inspect them. Ratings from previous comprehensive inspections for those Key Questions were used in calculating the overall rating at this inspection.
The overall rating for the service has remained good. This is based on the findings at this inspection. The provider had taken effective action to mitigate the risks. We found no evidence during this inspection that people were at risk of harm from this concern. Please see the Safe, Effective and Well-led sections of this full report.
You can read the report from our last comprehensive inspection, by selecting the ‘all reports’ link for Aahana House on our website at www.cqc.org.uk.
Follow up
We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.
People’s experience of using this service:
The provider took steps to help people feel safe and there were systems to protect people from abuse. There were risk management plans to keep people safe from avoidable harm and the provider checked the premises were safe, clean and suitably adapted to meet people’s needs. Staff had opportunities to learn when things went wrong and the provider took action to prevent incidents from happening again.
There were enough staff to support people safely and the provider carried out checks to make sure staff they recruited were suitable.
People received their medicines as prescribed. There were systems to ensure medicines were stored and administered safely.
People’s care was based on evidence based guidance and assessments of their needs carried out in consultation with other providers who were involved with people’s care. People had access to healthcare services as needed. People were provided with enough to eat and drink.
Staff had the support they needed to provide care effectively, but did not have training in supporting people with specific mental health conditions. The registered manager said they would look into this.
People were supported to have choice in their daily lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service supported this practice. Staff gained people’s consent before providing care to them.
People told us they got on well with staff. Staff knew people well and treated them with respect. Each person had a key member of staff assigned to them who supported them to express their views about how they wanted their care delivered. People were able to make choices about their daily routines.
Staff respected people’s privacy, dignity and independence. The service worked to support people in developing or regaining independent living skills.
People had personalised care plans that took into account their needs, wishes and preferences about how they wanted their care delivered. The service supported people to work towards their recovery and rehabilitation goals. People’s religious and cultural needs were met. People felt there was not enough to do and a good variety of structured activities was not always available. One person was unable to leave the home because the service could not currently meet their mobility support needs. However, the provider had plans to improve the provision of activities and we will check this at our next inspection.
People and staff had opportunities to discuss their care and feed back their views to management. This included daily conversations, questionnaires and regular meetings between people and staff. The provider used checks and audits to monitor the quality of the service and identify any improvements that might be needed. Although people were aware of the complaints procedure, they did not always feel the provider responded to their complaints. Records showed the provider followed their procedure but sometimes people needed to be reminded of what action they had taken.
Rating at last inspection: This was the first inspection at this service since its registration in February 2018.
Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the date of registration.
Follow up: We will continue to monitor the service through the information we receive. We will inspect in line with our inspection schedule or sooner if required.