Arden House Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Person-centred Care
• Care provision, Integration and continuity
• Providing Information
• Listening to and involving people
• Equity in access
• Equity in experiences and outcomes
• Planning for the future

Responsive – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

At our last assessment we rated this key question Good. At this assessment the rating has changed to Requires Improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 57 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

The provider did not always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

The provider had not ensured people’s care was person-centred. People’s care plans were not sufficiently detailed to fully reflect the reason for coming to live at Arden House, their likes, dislikes, what was important to them and plans for the future. Daily care records were task-focused and did not always demonstrate how people’s social and emotional support needs were being met. This was fully discussed with the provider, who was already taking action to improve the care plan system and had introduced training for staff.

Peoples’ health needs were not always planned for or included in their care plan or risk assessments. For example, there was no guidance for staff to follow regarding managing the risk for people who lived with liver disease and abdominal distension, or those that lived with seizures. This placed people at risk of harm.

During the inspection, we found there was a lack of personalised activities, and it was not clear how people were being engaged in meaningful activities which suited their individual preferences and met their expectations. People told us they were bored, and that this was a trigger for them to drink, some mentioned that they use to enjoy art classes at the home. The provider said that they would organise this for people.

There were some shortfalls in how the provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was not always joined-up, flexible or supportive of choice and continuity.

Care plans were regularly reviewed, but lacked important updated information about their care needs, including any health and medical needs. We were told of community partnership working but this was not clear in peoples’ care plans or records.

Feedback from people was mixed. Some told us, that staff were pro-active in understanding their care needs and assisted them in receiving support from health professionals, whilst other people told us, that they didn’t feel supported or feel that they received the help they required.

We received positive feedback from health professionals, comments included, “I have only seen staff be kind and considerate. When I visit, they are professional and polite. They know residents well, I have seen good results, from their placement. I have no concerns.” Another comment was, “They have had training and appear knowledgeable and seem genuinely to want to help people.”

The provider supplied appropriate, accurate and up-to-date information in formats that were tailored to individual needs.

People received information about the service from the provider, which included a contract with terms of residency. To enhance people’s understanding and support them to settle in, staff and health professionals took time to communicate with people and keep them informed of pertinent information. All care plans were held on a computer, and this enabled them to be printed off or sent, for hospital appointments and transfers. They could also be enlarged for those that have sight impairment. We were informed that all organisational documents could be provided in an alternative format/language if required.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

To gain peoples’ feedback, the provider used annual surveys, resident meetings, one to one meetings with people and staff. Minutes of the resident meetings were taken, but no actions recorded to address peoples’ comments. Comments regarding activities and wanting more interaction were recorded but people were told to make a formal complaint. However, we could not see that this was taken forward. One person told us that they felt their thoughts had been ignored as nothing had changed. Another person told us that they kept asking for changes but could not see any improvements. Some people had asked at the resident meeting March 2025 for grow bags to grow their own vegetables and fruit and this activity had not happened, which meant people did not always feel listened to.

The provider had a complaints policy which explained the ways in which concerns could be raised, the process for dealing with any concerns and further steps that could be taken if complainants were unhappy with the resolution. People regularly had reviews of their care plans, and people had the opportunity to be involved in these reviews.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it.

People told us that they felt supported by staff to access appropriate support and treatment. Some comments were not positive, but this was due to specific problems with the person not wanting certain guidance and treatment. Staff confirmed that people were able to access care, treatment and support when they needed to.

One health professional told us, “They treat people respectfully and I’ve never seen anyone treated unfairly. They discuss people in a non-discriminatory way.” Another health professional said, “Staff are respectful and appear kind.”

Records showed staff had received training in Equality Diversity and they explained how they treated people equally, without discrimination and respected their individual needs, including any medical, religious or cultural needs. People’s care plans contained information about their wishes in relation to cultural and spiritual needs. This included care plans around sexuality, emotional support and daily lifestyle.

Staff and leaders actively listened to information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experience or outcomes and tailored their care, support and treatment in response to this.

People had been supported to achieve good outcomes and have positive experiences. However, these whilst shared with external agencies, were not documented in people’s care plans. Some people told us they had been sober for 6 months or more but worried that if they didn’t keep occupied, they may slip into bad habits again. There were no supportive plans to manage this. The staff team had worked to recognise and respond to potential inequalities people may experience.

People were not always supported to plan for important life changes, so they could have enough time to make informed decisions about their future, including at the end of their life.

Due to the varied ages, mostly younger people, this was not fully explored within care documents at this time as it was not appropriate.

When people needed end of life care, staff worked closely with other health care professionals to provide the best care for people in a compassionate way. There was one person recently commenced on the palliative care pathway. However, this was not robustly reflected in the care documentation. There was reflection of nutritional changes but minimal about personal care, pain relief or managing alcohol withdrawal. The person had other health complications but little to guide staff on managing these as their health declined. This was acknowledged and the management team advised they would work with staff to amend the care documentation to guide staff at this time.

Care plans contained information and guidance in respect of peoples' religious and resuscitation wishes. We did find that there were some people with no ReSPECT forms, we were told that this would be a priority for those who may require one going forward. ReSPECT stands for Recommended Summary Plan for Emergency Care and Treatment and ensures that people’s personal wishes are documented.