Arden House

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 remained good. This meant people’s needs were met through good organisation and delivery.

This service scored 71 (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 made sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they decided, in partnership with people, how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs.

People told us they liked living at Arden House and that staff were respectful and responsive. Staff and the management team demonstrated a good understanding of the people they supported and how they needed to reflect this when responding to their needs. For example, a staff member explained how 1 person’s previous occupation could impact on how they responded during periods of anxiety or distress. Another staff member described how they would interact with people if they were down or low in mood.

Care plans contained some information about people’s preferences, preferred routines and likes and dislikes. For example, in relation to the clothes they wore, their food preferences and how they liked to spend their day.

People’s rooms were personalised and people were given a choice about where they ate their meals.

The provider understood the diverse health and care needs of people and their local communities, so care was joined-up, flexible and supported choice and continuity.

People were supported by familiar staff who knew them well. Staff told us how they communicated information across shifts, so people received continuity of care.

Relatives told us they were welcomed into the home and were encouraged to continue providing a caring role for their relative. When people had their own dentists, opticians, hairdressers or chiropodists, staff supported them to maintain these relationships. They were either invited into the home or people were supported to attend external appointments.

The GP and frailty nurse from the local surgery carried out a ‘ward round’ at the home each week and staff worked closely with other healthcare professionals. One healthcare professional told us, “They treat people like family. They know them well and they talk to them like this is their home. That impacts us when we come in and we get to know them in the same way. Because of their relationships it helps us. People are treated really well.”

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

The provider assessed people’s needs before they moved into the home and considered people’s requirements to support communication. Care plans detailed people’s sensory needs and any barriers to their understanding of information. For example, whether they needed any aids to support their sight, hearing or speech.

Staff told us how they had used pictures books and ‘write boards’ to communicate better with people. Some information was available in pictorial format to support people’s understanding. For example, the written menu and activities schedule were accompanied by pictures and photographs.

The provider used an information technology based system to allow relatives who did not live locally to upload and share information and photographs to a portal, which staff printed and shared with people.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support.

People told us they knew who the registered manager was and felt confident raising concerns with her. However, the registered manager had been supporting at another home for several months which meant they had not always been accessible to people. One person told us, “I have no complaints. I’d go to the boss lady downstairs if I did.” Another person said, “I know who the manager is, she is a good manager, but they keep sending her to other homes.”

People and their relatives had not always been involved in care planning meetings, and there was no evidence they had been involved in best interest decisions when people lacked capacity. However, relatives told us they were communicated with regularly, usually by telephone or in person, and whenever there was a concern or a change with their family member.

The provider’s complaints process was available in the entrance to the home. Complaints were recorded and outcomes evidenced, however we found the provider’s policy for responding to complaints was not consistently followed and people did not always receive a formal response.

People were given opportunity to share ideas in ‘resident’s meetings.’ There was a ‘you said - we did’ board on display in the home which showed what had been changed because of feedback from meetings.

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

Referrals had been made to external health and social care professionals when people required. People were supported to attend appointments outside of the home by staff who booked appropriate and suitable transport. Some people were visited regularly by the district nursing team and staff told us they had good working relationships with the local GP practice.

The provider used a recognised tool to identify people’s levels of frailty. This helped ensure people had the support they needed in place.

The home was set over 5 floors, with dining rooms in the basement and in the attic. We noted at mealtimes, there was some delay in people being able to move around the home as there was only 1 lift. There were stairlifts to support people up and down stairs in the event of a lift failure.

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.

The provider and leadership at the home were committed to ensuring all people living at the home were treated fairly and had a good experience of care. This included people with protected characteristics. As part of this approach, the provider had ensured all staff, whatever their role, had training specific to people’s needs. This included care, housekeeping, catering and maintenance staff. This helped ensure all staff could interact with people to promote equitable outcomes. Staff valued this approach with 1 housekeeping staff member commenting, “We do everything, care planning, moving and handling. They (the provider) are very on it with the training. Everyone in the building does the same training." Another non-care member of staff told us, "All the staff do dementia training. The provider put all the staff through the same, whether it be me, kitchen or housekeeping staff, we all do the training the care staff do."

People were 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.

Arden House was accredited under the Gold Standards Framework (GSF) which is a national framework of tools and tasks that aims to deliver a ‘gold standard of care’ for all people nearing the end of their lives. Care plans included information about where people wanted to be cared for, what level of treatment they were happy with and what they would like to happen in an emergency if their health deteriorated. Staff supported people to remain at Arden House, if this was possible and their preferred option. They worked closely with healthcare professionals to ensure they remained comfortable, and this included managing pain.

During day 2 of our inspection, we saw staff were invited to line up and pay tribute to someone who, after death, left the home for the final time. Staff told us this gave them opportunity to say goodbye to people they had spent time caring for. The registered manager offered support to staff if they became upset.

It had been discussed and agreed in a ‘residents meeting’, that information was shared with people throughout the home when someone died. Staff and people living in the home were invited to add a story, memory or something they liked about the person to a poster on display. After a short time, this was shared with the family of the person who had died, and the registered manager told us that relatives appreciated how much they had been cared about.