- Care home
Amaana Care Also known as Arden House
Assessment report published 17 July 2026
Contents
Ratings
Our view of the service
Date of assessment: 06 May to 27 May 2026.
Amaana Care is a care home providing accommodation and personal care to people over and under 65. This was the first assessment of this newly registered service. At the time of inspection, 9 people were using the service.
We identified significant concerns across the service, including failures in safeguarding processes, medicines management, consent, environmental safety, infection prevention and control, staffing assurance, and governance oversight. The provider did not consistently ensure that people were protected from harm or that care was delivered safely and in line with legislation and best practice.
Risks to people were not always identified, assessed, or effectively managed and environmental risks, including hot water temperatures and fire safety issues, had not been consistently monitored or mitigated. In addition, records and care planning were inconsistent, meaning staff did not always have the information they needed to deliver safe and personalised care. Systems to monitor quality, identify risks, and drive improvement were either absent or not embedded into practice.
However, there were some examples of positive practice, including staff respecting people’s choices at times and supporting individuals to maintain important relationships. However, these examples were not consistent across the service and did not mitigate the overall concerns identified.
During the inspection process, the provider informed us of their intention to temporarily suspend the service. This would involve the service becoming dormant and no longer providing a regulated activity, to enable the provider to review the concerns identified and implement improvements. The local authority was supporting people to find alternative accommodation through this process.
We identified 5 breaches of the legal regulations in relation to safe care and treatment, safeguarding, need for consent, staffing and governance. We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found at this assessment.
In instances where CQC has begun a process of regulatory action, we may publish this information on our website after any representations and/or appeals have been concluded, if the action has been taken forward.
People's experience of this service
Not all people could speak with us in detail about their experiences. Where this was the case, we also assessed people's experience by reviewing people's care records and observing the care and support they received.
People’s experiences of the service were mixed. We observed people often spent extended periods with limited engagement or interaction from staff. Many remained seated in communal areas without meaningful social stimulation, and interactions were often brief and task focused.
People’s experiences were also affected by inconsistencies in how their needs were met. People were not always fully involved in decisions about their care. Processes such as the use of covert medicines were not always supported by clear communication or involvement. However, there were examples of positive support, particularly in maintaining relationships. One person had been supported to continue seeing their family, which had improved their wellbeing. Staff were also described as “passionate about people and caring for their needs.”