Amaana Care Also known as Arden House

On this page

• Overview
• Assessing needs
• Delivering evidence-based care and treatment
• How staff, teams and services work together
• Supporting people to live healthier lives
• Monitoring and improving outcomes
• Consent to care and treatment

Effective – this means we looked for evidence that people’s care, treatment and support achieved good outcomes and promoted a good quality of life, based on best available evidence.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated inadequate. This meant there were widespread and significant shortfalls in people’s care, support and outcomes.

The service was in breach of legal regulation in relation to the need for consent.
 

This service scored 38 (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 did not make sure people’s care and treatment was effective because they did not check and discuss people’s health, care, wellbeing and communication needs with them. Care records contained inaccurate, inconsistent and outdated information, for example, one person’s care plan still referred to them receiving insulin, which had been discontinued. Where people required support to evacuate the building in an emergency, individual assessments had not been completed to determine whether the person and staff could safely use the equipment provided. This meant staff were expected to provide care without a clear baseline understanding of people’s needs and meant care was reactive, rather than planned and placed people at risk of harm.

The provider did not plan and deliver people’s care and treatment with them. They did not follow legislation and current evidence-based good practice and standards. For example, administration of covert medication was not aligned with Mental Capacity Act requirements, and infection prevention and control (IPC) practices did not meet national standards. Unsafe moving and handling practices demonstrated failure to follow training or recognised guidance. This placed people at risk of harm.

The provider did not always work effectively with partners or within teams to support people. For example, safeguarding concerns were not shared with local authorities, and there was limited communication with external professionals. This meant care was not coordinated and risks were not appropriately managed across services. However, the provider did work closely with their local GP surgery, and they told us the provider was responsive to their advice and guidance.

The provider did not always support people to manage their health and wellbeing, meaning people could not consistently maximise their independence, choice and control. For example, care plans did not consistently reflect how to support people to achieve positive health outcomes. However, people received fortified foods and specialist diets where required, and weights were regularly monitored with plans in place to support a healthy weight. A relative said, “When [Person] was first admitted they had lost some weight, but it is better now.”

The provider did not always routinely monitor people’s care and treatment to continuously improve it. They did not always ensure that outcomes were positive and consistent, or that they met both clinical expectations and the expectations of people themselves. For example, we found incidents were not always captured and analysed to monitor for themes and trends to enable the provider to improve people’s care experience.

The provider did not tell people about their rights around consent and did not respect their rights when delivering care and treatment. For example, people were subject to Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLS) authorisations despite being assessed as having capacity by the provider, and covert medicines were not always administered with the correct legal authority.