Arden House

Updated 15 September 2018

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This comprehensive inspection took place on 7 August 2018 and was unannounced. The inspection was undertaken by one inspector, an assistant inspector and an expert by experience. The expert by experience was a person who had personal experience of caring for someone who had similar care needs.

Prior to our inspection visit, we reviewed the information we held about the service. We looked at information received from the local authority commissioners and the statutory notifications the registered manager had sent us. A statutory notification is information about important events which the provider is required to send to us by law. Commissioners are people who work to find appropriate care and support services which are paid for by the local authority. The commissioners did not share any concerns about the service.

Before the inspection visit, the provider completed a Provider Information Collection (PIC). This is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. The PIC was very detailed and we were able to review the information in the PIC during our inspection visit. We found the information in the PIC was an accurate assessment of how the service operated.

During our inspection visit we spoke with the deputy manager about their management of the home. We spoke with three care staff and two non-care staff about what it was like to work at Arden House.

During the inspection visit we spoke with six people who lived at the home and one relative. We observed care and support being delivered in communal areas and we observed how people were supported to eat and drink at lunch time.

We reviewed three people’s care plans and daily records to see how their care and treatment was planned and delivered. We looked at staff training records, records of complaints and reviewed the checks the registered manager and provider made to assure themselves people received a quality service.

Updated 15 September 2018

We inspected this service on 7 August 2018. The inspection was unannounced.

The service provides accommodation and personal care for up to 33 older people who may live with dementia. People in care homes receive accommodation and personal care as a single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. The home is located in a residential area and the accommodation is split over five floors. Twenty eight people were living at the home on the day of our inspection visit.

There was a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run. The registered manager was unavailable at the time of our visit, so our inspection was supported by the deputy manager.

At our previous inspection in February 2016, we rated the service as ‘Good’ overall but we identified processes to support good governance needed to be improved. At this inspection we found those improvements had been made. However, managers needed to be more consistent in the application of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 when there were restrictions in people’s care they may not have the capacity to consent to. The effectiveness of the service now ‘Requires Improvement’ but the service remains rated ‘Good’ overall.

People felt safe and secure living at Arden House. There were enough staff to provide safe care, although there were occasions when staff were very busy. There were risk management plans for each person that related to their abilities and the support they needed to minimise risks. Staff had received training in safeguarding people from abuse and understood their responsibilities to protect people from avoidable harm, neglect and discrimination.

Staff completed training to ensure they had the knowledge and skills to meet people’s assessed needs and deliver safe and effective care to people. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and had regular individual meetings and observations of their practice to make sure they carried these out safely.

Care plans provided staff with the information they needed to meet people’s needs. People’s care and support needs were kept under review and staff were informed about changes in people’s care.

Staff worked well with other healthcare professionals and arrangements were in place to support co-ordinated care. Medicines were managed in accordance with good practice and people received their medicines as prescribed. There was a choice of food and people were supported to eat a nutritionally balanced diet to maintain their health.

The home was welcoming, clean and well-maintained. People were able to take part in a range of leisure activities to promote their physical and mental wellbeing as well as activities to encourage people to socialise and reminisce together.

Staff were caring and engaged positively with people. Staff supported people to maintain their independence and knew how to provide care in a dignified way that protected people’s right to privacy. Staff offered people choice and asked people if they would like support with anything.

People thought the home was well-managed and were happy with the care they received. Staff spoke positively about the leadership and availability of managers and senior staff.

The provider and registered manager conducted regular audits of the quality of the service to make sure people received safe. responsive care. They also responded to feedback they received from people to identify areas of development. The provider welcomed external scrutiny to improve the standards of care within the home.