Amaana Care Also known as Arden House

On this page

• Overview
• Kindness, compassion and dignity
• Treating people as individuals
• Independence, choice and control
• Responding to people’s immediate needs
• Workforce wellbeing and enablement

Caring – this means we looked for evidence that the provider involved people and treated them with compassion, kindness, dignity and respect.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people did not always feel well-supported, cared for or treated with dignity and respect.
 

This service scored 50 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

Staff interactions with people were inconsistent. Some positive interactions were observed, such as offering drinks, engaging in activities, and responding politely to people’s requests. One relative said, “I feel that the staff have got to know [Person] well. They are very kind.” Another said, “[Staff] have got to know [Person]. They are shown respect and the staff know their ins and outs.”

However, we also observed limited meaningful engagement, with staff spending extended periods in communal areas without interacting with people. Activities were sometimes initiated without involving people in decisions or explaining what was happening. This meant people did not always receive person-centred, compassionate care.

People were not always treated as individuals or in receipt of care that consistently reflected their personal preferences and needs. While some care plans contained elements of personalised information, this was inconsistent across the service, and in several cases, records lacked sufficient detail to guide staff in delivering person-centred care.
For example, care records reviewed did not always include meaningful life history information, individual routines, or clear guidance on how people preferred to receive care. In some cases, care plans contained conflicting or outdated information, such as references to discontinued treatments or unclear instructions relating to support needs, which reduced their effectiveness in guiding staff practice.
 

The provider did not always promote people’s independence or choice. For example, the use of covert medicines without consent and inappropriate DoLS applications restricted people’s rights without proper authorisation.

People’s immediate needs were not consistently recognised, monitored, or responded to in a timely and person-centred way. Whilst some responsive interactions were observed, these were not sustained or embedded into everyday practice, resulting in inconsistencies. Our observations showed people were often presenting as passive, withdrawn, or staring into the distance, with staff interactions limited to brief, task-based exchanges such as offering drinks. In some instances, staff initiated an activity, such as placing puzzles or games in front of people, but did not remain to support or encourage participation, and items were removed shortly afterwards. This demonstrated a lack of sustained responsiveness to people’s emotional and social needs.

The provider did not always ensure staff were adequately supported to deliver safe, person-centred care. There was limited evidence of supervision, training oversight, or competency review systems. Staff practice varied, and unsafe practices were observed, indicating gaps in support and development. This meant staff were not consistently enabled to deliver high-quality care.