You are here

Inspection Summary


Overall summary & rating

Good

Updated 11 January 2017

We inspected Arundel Park Lodge on 29 November 2016. The inspection was unannounced.

The home provides residential care for up to 30 people. People required support with their personal care and had additional nursing needs including frailty associated with old age and poor mobility. Some people were living with dementia.

Arundel Park Lodge is a detached art deco style property situated in Saltdean. There are two communal lounges and dining room and well-maintained gardens. The home is one of two locations owned and run by Whytecliffe Limited.

As part of this inspection, we checked what action had been taken to address the breach of legal requirements we had identified at our last inspection on 8 September 2015. After our last inspection, the provider wrote to us to say what they would do to meet legal requirements and sent us an action plan detailing how they intended to ensure they met the requirements of the law. At this inspection we found improvements had been made and sustained and the breach previously identified was addressed.

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 and associated regulations about how the service is run.

We saw that regular meetings with residents and their relatives had not taken place. This was a missed opportunity to ask questions, discuss suggestions and address problems or concerns with management. Feedback had been sought from people and their relatives in the 2016 questionnaire. However, residents and relatives meetings had not been held on a regular basis to provide a forum for people to raise concerns and discuss ideas. One person said, “My views have not been asked of before but I think the home is well managed.” We have identified this as an area of practice that needs improvement.

Care plans reflected people’s assessed level of care needs and care delivery was person specific. For people with specific health problems, there was guidance in place for staff to deliver safe care and treatment. We were told, “[My relative] has dementia and now needs nursing care. They are safe and well looked after here. The home have smoothed the way in the whole process. Mum is safe and happy.” There were sufficient suitably qualified and experienced staff to deliver care.

People’s medicines were stored safely and in line with legal regulations and people received their medicines as prescribed.

The provider was meeting the requirements of the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. Mental capacity assessments were completed in line with legal requirements. Staff were following the principles of the MCA. Consideration was made of people’s ability to make individual decisions for themselves, as required under the MCA Code of Practice.

People and visitors we spoke with were complimentary about the caring nature of staff. The delivery of care was tailored to individual choice. Care plans had sufficient information on people’s likes and dislikes and information about people’s lifestyle choices was available for staff. The provision of meaningful activities positively influenced people’s well-being. A relative told us, “[Named relative] never wants to come out of their room but they still offer the opportunity and encourage participation. There’s a lot going on for those that want it.”

People and their relatives were complimentary about the meal service at the home. One person said, “The food and drink I get here is perfect. It’s cooked well, tastes nice and a good variety. I do need support to eat and drink as I am unable to hold anything,” The dining experience for people was social and enjoyable. People were supported to eat and drink enough to sustain their health and well-being.

Quality assurance systems were in place. Incidents

Inspection areas

Safe

Good

Updated 11 January 2017

Arundel Park Lodge was safe.

Risk assessments were in place and up to date.

There were enough suitably qualified and experienced staff to meet people’s needs.

The management and administration of medicines was safe.

Staff had received training in how to safeguard people from abuse and staff recruitment practices were safe.

Effective

Good

Updated 11 January 2017

Arundel Park Lodge was effective.

Staff had received essential training to carry out their roles effectively.

Staff received on-going professional development through regular supervisions and appraisals.

Staff understood the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Caring

Good

Updated 11 January 2017

Arundel Park Lodge was caring.

Care took account of people’s individual preferences.

People’s dignity was respected.

Staff interacted positively with people. The support people received was provided by staff who were kind and thoughtful.

Responsive

Good

Updated 11 January 2017

Arundel Park Lodge was responsive.

Care plans accurately recorded people’s likes, dislikes and preferences.

Staff had information that enabled them to provide support in line with people’s wishes.

There were meaningful activities for people to participate in groups or individually to meet their social and welfare needs and to prevent isolation.

A complaints policy was in place and people and visitors felt their complaint or concern would be resolved appropriately.

Well-led

Requires improvement

Updated 11 January 2017

Arundel Park Lodge was not consistently well-led.

People and their relatives were not always able to comment on and influence care in the home.

People, relatives and staff spoke positively of the registered manager.

Quality assurance was used to help improve standards