We considered all the evidence we had gathered under the outcomes we inspected. We used the information to answer the five questions we always ask; ' Is the service safe?
' Is the service effective?
' Is the service caring?
' Is the service responsive?
' Is the service well led?
Below is a summary of what we found.
Is the service safe?
People we spoke with said they felt safe at Aisling Lodge. Staff had undertaken training in protecting vulnerable adults from abuse and they demonstrated that they understood their responsibility to identify and report any concerns.
There were sufficient staff on duty to meet the needs of the people who lived at the home and additional staff were added to the rota to meet any specific needs, such as escorting people to hospital appointments. Risk assessments had been carried out to identify any potential health and safety risks to each person and actions put in place so that staff knew how to minimise the risks.
However, some areas of the home smelled unpleasant, which meant that the infection control system at the home was not robust enough to ensure that the home was kept clean.
Is the service effective?
People told us that they were happy at this home and that their needs were met by the staff. One person said, 'Coming here was the best thing that ever happened to me.' Relatives we spoke with were, overall, pleased with the service that was being provided to their family members.
Care plans gave staff clear guidance about the care that each person needed, and the way in which each person wanted their care to be delivered by the staff. Staff told us that the care plans were 'very useful.'
People's nutritional needs were assessed, recorded and monitored so that any specific requirements were met by the staff.
Is the service caring?
We spoke with a number of people who lived at Aisling Lodge and we observed how people related to the staff. We saw that people got on well with the staff who spoke to people in a caring and friendly way. People told us that staff treated them with kindness and respected their privacy and dignity. Staff also supported people to remain as independent as possible.
A relative told us, 'Everybody's been so kind to our [family member] and to everyone else. They're all really nice.'
Is the service responsive?
People's needs were assessed before they were admitted to the home and care plans were developed from the assessment. Care plans were reviewed and updated when people's needs changed so that staff would know how to meet each individual's changing care needs.
We saw that people's health needs were monitored, as staff ensured that people had access to other healthcare professionals such as their GP, dietician, optician and chiropodist.
Is the service well-led?
Prior to our inspection we had received a long list of concerns from a source that wanted to remain anonymous. We had asked the provider to investigate a number of the concerns, which they did and sent us their response. During the inspection we looked for evidence so that we could ascertain whether or not the concerns raised were genuine concerns. We found little evidence that supported the allegations made. Staff told us that the manager was 'very good, really OK' and that 'working here is really nice.'
However, the provider did not have a robust system in place to monitor the quality of the service being provided to people. We found that the provider had not carried out the actions they said they would, following a previous inspection when we assessed that their quality monitoring system was inadequate. The manager told us that a number of checks and audits were carried out, but agreed that there was no system to monitor whether any improvements were needed or carried out. This meant that the service was not as well led as it should have been.
We found that the provider was not compliant with some of the regulations in the areas we assessed. If you wish to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.