Aaron House

“Who the service is for”

“The service supports older people and people living with dementia.”

“Key findings”

“We carried out this assessment on 17 August 2026. This service was previously rated as good. We carried out this assessment to confirm whether the rating of good remains accurate. This report does not provide detailed information on areas where we found practice continues to meet a good standard. Instead, our findings focus on any areas where the service needs to improve or where we found exceptional practice.”

“There was a learning culture in the service where accidents and incidents were reviewed and analysed to identify lessons learned and opportunities for continuous service improvement. Policies and processes were in place to keep people safe. Where people lacked capacity decisions were made in their best interest in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005. People can only be deprived of their liberty to receive care and treatment with appropriate legal authority. In care homes, this can be done through a procedure called the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS), which is part of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). We checked whether the service was working within the principles of the MCA and how they managed DoLS within the service. We found members of staff and the management team worked within the MCA. DoLS authorisations were appropriately applied for and overseen. People were not subject to unlawful or excessive restrictions they had choice, control and freedom over their lives. People’s care needs were assessed appropriately and mitigations to reduce risk were put in place. Care plans were reviewed regularly. The care environment was safe and regular checks on equipment, water temperature and gas and electric services were completed. Members of staff were deployed effectively and there were sufficient numbers of staff to meet people’s care and support needs. Members of staff were supported by the management team, and they had completed a comprehensive range of training courses specific to their roles and responsibilities. Medicines were managed, on the whole, safely. We did, however, identify some areas for improvement which we discussed with the management team. Immediate action was taken which mitigated risk to people. Learning was identified and updated processes were put in place following our site visit. The learning outcomes from this inspection were shared across the provider’s group of services.”

“People’s needs were assessed effectively and key workers carried out regular reviews. People had access to regular drinks and snacks. Where people had additional needs linked to nutrition and hydration, there were monitoring processes in place which ensured action was taken if people were not eating or drinking sufficiently. People had access to regular visits from their local GP and other health and care professionals. People were given information about consenting to care and support in the care home. This was recorded in their care plan. Where people lacked capacity to make informed decisions, the provider followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and made decisions which were in people's best interests and ensured they had maximum freedom and choice.”

“Members of staff were kind and caring. People who were independent were supported to maintain their independence and to have choice and control about their care and support. We observed people making choices throughout our visit to the service. Some people chose to eat their meals in the dining room and others chose to eat in their rooms or in the lounge.”

“Care and support was person-centred and specific to each person. Care plans had person-centred information which enabled members of staff to…”