You are here

Arden House Residential Care Home Good

Inspection Summary

Overall summary & rating


Updated 12 September 2018

This inspection took place on 27 July and 02 August 2018 and was unannounced. Arden House is a 'care home'. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or 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.

Arden House is a care home for up to 35 older people that require support and personal care. At the time of the inspection there were 14 people living in the home. The people living at Arden House all lived with a degree of physical frailty. There were also people who were living with a dementia type illness, physical disabilities, mental health illness, alcohol dependency, diabetes, Parkinson’s disease and heart disease.

At a comprehensive inspection in July 2017 the overall rating for this service was requires Improvement. We undertook this unannounced comprehensive inspection to look at all aspects of the service and to check that the provider had followed their action plan and confirm that the service had sustained the improvements. The overall rating for Arden House has been changed to good.

The service had a registered manager in place. 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.

Whilst there were systems and processes to assess and monitor the quality of the service provided and ensure that the premises were safe and well maintained, there were some areas of essential maintenance that had been overlooked and needed to be addressed. For example, ensuring that fire risk assessments were updated by a competent person. The yearly legionella test had not yet been undertaken and the five year electrical safety certificate was slightly out of date. Following the inspection, we received written confirmation that these had been taken forward with urgency with timescales for completion by the end of August 2018.

People were content and relaxed with staff. They said they felt safe and there were sufficient staff to support them. When staff were recruited, their employment history was checked and references obtained. Checks were also undertaken to ensure new staff were safe to work within the care sector. Medicines were managed safely and in accordance with current regulations and guidance. There were systems in place to ensure that medicines had been stored, administered, audited and reviewed appropriately. Emergency procedures were in place in the event of fire and people knew what to do, as did the staff. Staff were knowledgeable and trained in safeguarding adults and what action they should take if they suspected abuse was taking place. Staff had a good understanding of Equality, diversity and human rights. Accidents and incidents were recorded appropriately and steps taken to minimise the risk of similar events happening in the future.

Staff had received essential training and there were opportunities for additional training specific to the needs of the service, including the care of people with specific health problems such as diabetes. Formal personal development plans, including regular supervisions and annual appraisals were in place. The provider assessed people's capacity to make their own decisions if there was a reason to question their capacity. Staff spoken with had an understanding of the Mental Capacity Act. Where possible, they supported people to make their own decisions and sought consent before delivering care and support. Where people's care plans contained restrictions on their liberty, applications for legal authorisation had been sent to the relevant authorities as required by the legislation. People were encouraged and supported to eat and drink well. There was a varied daily choic

Inspection areas



Updated 12 September 2018

Arden House was safe.

Risk to people had been assessed. Accidents and incidents were recorded and action was taken to reduce the risk of a re-occurrence.

Robust recruitment procedures ensured only suitable staff worked at the home. There were enough staff working in the home to meet people�s needs.

Staff had attended safeguarding training and had a clear understanding of abuse, how to protect people and who to report to if they had any concerns.

Medicines were managed safely. Staff had attended relevant training, there were systems in place to ensure medicines were given as prescribed and records were accurate.



Updated 12 September 2018

Arden House was effective.

Staff had received essential training on the Mental Capacity Act (2005) and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) and demonstrated a sound understanding of the legal requirements.

Staff received training which was appropriate to their job role. This was continually updated so staff had the knowledge to effectively meet people�s needs. Staff had regular supervisions with their manager, and formal personal development plans, such as annual appraisals.

People could make decisions about what they wanted to eat and drink and were supported to stay healthy. They had access to health care professionals for regular check-ups as needed.



Updated 12 September 2018

Arden House was caring.

Staff knew people well and had good relationships with them.

People were treated with respect and their dignity promoted.

People and relatives were positive about the care provided by staff.

People were involved in day to day decisions and given support when needed.



Updated 12 September 2018

Arden House was responsive.

Care plans identified people�s needs, preferences and risks to their care and support.

The delivery of care was person focused and responsive to people�s individual needs.

People told us that they could make everyday choices. At this time activities were minimal as people chose how they spent their time.

A complaints policy was in place and complaints were handled appropriately. People felt their complaint or concern would be investigated and resolved.


Requires improvement

Updated 12 September 2018

Arden House was not consistently well led.

Systems for monitoring the quality of the service were not always effective as not all essential environmental issues had been dealt with in a timely manner.

Staff were aware of their roles and responsibilities and felt all the staff worked well together as a team.

Feedback about the service provided was consistently sought from people, relatives and staff.

The home had a vision and values statement and the staff and management team were committed to improve the service.