Arden Park

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

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.

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

This service scored 75 (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.

One person told us, “I have a care plan. [Staff] would listen if I wanted to change anything.” Another person said staff understood how they liked to spend their time, and said staff respected their wishes. A relative said, “They [Staff] will talk to us when we visit, and they tell us what’s going on”.

Staff used their knowledge of how people liked to be reassured when caring for them. For example, we saw staff held some people's hands, or gave them a hug, and shared a joke with them to reassure them when they seemed anxious or upset. Care plans detailed people’s support needs as well as preferences which helped staff to provide tailored care to people’s individual needs and preferences.

The provider created care plans and risk assessments with input from people and their relatives as and when needed. These were regularly reviewed to ensure they remained relevant to people’s evolving needs and preferences. Systems were in place to ensure review dates were set in advance and any updates shared with staff.

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.

The provider offered a range of placements, long stay, short stay, emergency placements and respite. Staff had a positive and cohesive working relationship with a range of health and social care professionals. The service worked effectively with commissioners and other partners to meet people’s needs. At pre-admission stage the service gathered as much information as possible including gender preference. One professional told us, “I’ve had an urgent placement, Friday afternoon. Had the number in my phone, they came out and assessed on that day. Person went in for respite; Monday came back weekend had gone well”. People and relatives reported the service communicated well with them and provided joined up working with professionals involved in their care and support.

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

Staff told us no one living at the home at the time of the inspection had specific communication needs which may mean they require information in different formats, one staff member said they could blow up the font size on care plans if needed. Staff had a good understanding of different communication needs and explained how they would use gestures, actions, pictures and adapt their speech to support people. Staff understood data protection requirements and information was collected and shared appropriately and legally.

Health and social care professionals reported the service provided clear and transparent information about the service and shared appropriate records of people’s information when it was needed.

The provider made it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff involved people in decisions about their care and told them what had changed as a result.

The service supported people, relatives and staff to appropriately provide feedback, share ideas or make a complaint with good oversight from the provider. These opportunities were through resident meetings and a digital reception system which people, relatives and staff could access following a visit or shift at the home. One person told us they had started to attend resident’s meetings. The person said staff were good at recording suggestions and always recorded actions from the previous meeting, “So we can see they have done them.”

Systems were in place for the provider to audit feedback from people, relatives and staff to ensure themes were monitored, action taken and aid learning to drive continuous improvement.

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

Staff told us they had access to equipment to support them in their role. There was a process in place to report or escalate any concerns they may have to management if needed.

Health and social care professionals gave us an example of how the service ensured people had access to services. The professional told us “I went out to see [person], their toenails were curling over. At the review I said it was going to cause problems. Registered manager came in and said chiropodist was coming in. The service emailed to say the chiropodist had visited”.

Staff had received appropriate training in equality, diversity and human rights, as well as targeted training to raise awareness of individuals and groups accessing the service who may be at risk of inequality or disadvantage.

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 service demonstrated how people accessing the service received care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. Staff knew individual needs well and removed barriers where they were able to. One relative complimented the service for supporting people to access activities in a way that considered their sensory needs. People`s care plans included information about their culture, religion and lifestyle.

Health and social care professionals reported prompt action by the service following any recommendations they made. One professional said, “They seem open to any suggestions to enhance someone’s quality of life”.

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.

There was evidence people and relatives had been consulted about their wishes at the end of their lives and information was clearly documented in their care plans detailing people’s wishes, family involvement, need for reassurance and support and pain management requirements. Relatives were complimentary about the quality of care their loved one received at the end of their life stating, “Quality of care – second to none”. They also said, “When [person] was in hospital, asked for them to be moved so friends/family could visit. The room was perfect, everything we asked for was done”.

The registered manager told us “End of life care, particular care needs are discussed at admission. if family do not want to discuss I will broach again later”. Staff told us, “We made sure [person] was comfortable, offered support with district nurse and GP, and did hourly checks. Family supported as well as staff who went in to speak with them every 30 minutes”. Senior staff gave examples of how they advocated for people at the end of their life, so they had anticipatory medicines to hand in good time for people to use them. Helping to ensure people’s wishes were respected and they remained comfortable and pain free.

Staff had been trained in end-of-life care, at the time of inspection there was no one in receipt of end-of-life care. One staff member told us, “There is peer support amongst ourselves”.

Systems were in place to ensure do not attempt resuscitation (DNACPR) and Recommended Summary Plans for Emergency Care and Treatment (ReSPECT) forms were in place to ensure peoples wishes were documented. .