Amaana Care Also known as Arden House

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 – this means we looked for evidence that the provider met people’s needs.

This is the first assessment for this newly registered service. This key question has been rated requires improvement. This meant people’s needs were not always met.

This service scored 54 (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 always make sure people were at the centre of their care and treatment choices and they did not always work in partnership with people, to decide how to respond to any relevant changes in people’s needs. People’s care plans did not fully capture their physical, mental, emotional, and social needs. We observed limited meaningful engagement from staff. Relatives told us, “They don’t generally come and speak to me about [Person] unless I ask them something.” However, another said, “I get a phone call or an email update.”

The provider did not always understand people’s needs or ensure care was organised in a way that fully supported them. As a result, care was not consistently delivered in a way that promoted choice, continuity or independence. Elements of the environment were not consistently adapted to meet people’s varying needs, including those living with cognitive impairments. For example, clearer signage or visual cues would better support people to navigate the service confidently. This meant the environment did not always enable people to maintain independence as effectively as it could. However, the provider acted and worked with commissioners where a person’s care needs increased to secure and provide one-to-one support where this was required.

The provider did not always ensure people received clear, accessible, and up-to-date information about their care. For example, care records were inconsistent and sometimes inaccurate. We observed a written menu displayed in the lounge remained unchanged between visits despite meals changing, meaning it could not be relied on to support informed choice. The service also did not provide pictorial menus, and people were expected to choose meals in advance without a reference point, However, there were examples of good practice. For example, one person whose first language was not English had access to a communication book with common phrases, which helped staff to communicate effectively. Despite this, such approaches were not consistently applied, and some people were at risk of not being fully involved in decisions about their care.

The provider did not always make it easy for people to share feedback and ideas, or raise complaints about their care, treatment and support. Staff did not always involve people in decisions about their care or tell them what had changed as a result. We found limited evidence of how people had been involved in the service and any changes that had been made because of people’s feedback. The registered manager told us they had relatives’ meetings where actions had been taken because of feedback, however, did not provide evidence of this so we could not be assured this had taken place.

The provider made sure that people could access the care, support and treatment they needed when they needed it. We found people were able to access external health services without delay and the provider had worked with external professionals such as speech and language therapists and dietitians to support people.

We could not always be assured staff and leaders actively listened to all information about people who are most likely to experience inequality in experiences and outcomes. We found safeguarding concerns were not always identified or reported and care plans did not always provide guidance on how to manage known risks.

The provider did not always support people to plan for future care needs. There was limited evidence of planning around changes in health, long-term outcomes, or end-of-life care. This meant people may not have been able to make informed decisions about their future.