Arundel House - Frinton-on-Sea

On this page

• Overview
• Learning culture
• Safe systems, pathways and transitions
• Safeguarding
• Involving people to manage risks
• Safe environments
• Safe and effective staffing
• Infection prevention and control
• Medicines optimisation

Safe – this means we looked for evidence that people were protected from abuse and avoidable harm.

At our last inspection, under the previous provider, we rated this key question inadequate. At this inspection the rating has improved to Good. This meant people were safe and protected from avoidable harm.

This service scored 69 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

People and staff told us that when they had raised concerns previously about their safety and wellbeing at the home these had not been taken seriously and acted upon. However, both staff and people were keen to tell us the current registered manager had bought about meaningful change in the home and that now they felt very safe living and working there.

People and staff said they felt encouraged and supported to raise concerns and felt confident they would be treated with compassion and understanding and not treated negatively if they did so.

Safety was a top priority that involving everyone, staff, people and management team. There was a culture of safety and learning based on openness, transparency and learning from events.Regular team meetings took place where all aspects of the home and of working with people could be discussed openly including areas of risk.

A relative told us, “I feel support workers went above and beyond to keep [person] safe, both in Arundel House and on trips out. Risk assessments were in place at all times. Support workers had a great knowledge of [person]. Management did a wonderful job of keeping staff well informed. Every staff member was well aware of all protocols put in place to keep [person] safe and happy.” 

There was a strong awareness of the risks to people across their care journeys. The provider’s approach to identifying and managing these risks was proactive and effective. One example was where the staff team advocated for a person in hospital. It was presumed the person lacked capacity about medical procedures to be undertaken. The support worker was able to help demonstrate the person’s capacity to discuss and understand their own health needs.

At the previous inspection in March 2023 the provider had failed to implement robust procedures to protect people from abuse. This placed people at risk of harm and was a breach of regulation 13 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At this inspection provider had made improvements and the service was no longer in breach of regulation 13.

Staff received training in safeguarding vulnerable adults and were knowledgeable about how to report safeguarding concerns. All staff we spoke with were confident their manager would act appropriately if a safeguarding concern was raised with them.

A staff member told us, “Any concerns raised about the individuals we support are taken seriously and handled appropriately by management. There is a clear safeguarding process, and management ensures timely follow-up and resolution. For example, when a staff member raised a concern about a person’s changing health condition, management promptly arranged for medical review and adapted the care plan to meet the person’s needs.”

A relative spoke of a previous incident where a staff member was overheard speaking very disrespectfully towards a person. The relative said the swift action taken by the management team had been reassuring in terms of the provider’s policies and overall management of the home

At the previous inspection the provider’s systems had not ensured care and treatment was provided in a safe way for people. This had placed people at risk of harm and was a breach of regulation 12 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.At this inspection the provider had made improvements and the service was no longer in breach of regulation 12.

Risk assessments were person-centred, proportionate, and regularly reviewed with the individual, where possible. Staff assessed with people risks to their health, support and well being and implemented plans to mitigate these. People understood these risks and were given advice on how to keep themselves safe. Staff followed guidance provided in these assessments so people received safe and effective care that met their needs.

People lived in a safe environment appropriate to meet their needs. Management and staff consider how environments can help keep people safe from psychological harm as well as physical harm, for example in relation to mobility and sensory needs.

The provider had introduced a robust maintenance system. The registered manager logged concerns on the system and the maintenance team attended within a day or two. One example was a blocked drain, the registered manager reported the concern on the system and it was rectified within 24 hours.

At the previous inspection there were insufficient numbers of skilled and knowledgeable staff to meet people's needs. This placed people at risk of harm and was a breach of regulation 18 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014.

At this inspection provider had made improvements and the service was no longer in breach of regulation 18. Some support workers had not completed all elements of refresher training. A system was being rolled out by the provider to help ensure all staff received training refreshers ahead of expiry and to build internal capacity through a 'train the trainer' approach. The provider was working to build a team of train the trainers between the local management team to allow for quicker roll out of training to support workers. This remained work in progress at this time.

The provider had enough safely recruited and trained staff to help ensure people’s safety and meet their needs. People were supported to have choice and control and were involved in planning their individualised support.

An external professional praised the staff team for their skills and care. They gave an example of a person whose moods were easily changeable. The professional told us skilled staff interventions usually worked well to de-escalate the person’s anxieties and emotions, without the need for additional medication. 

A relative told us there was a core staff team who had supported their family member for a significant period. They said, “This gives our family confidence in their (staff) levels of caring, skills, knowledge and ability and also that newer staff are well-supervised and are having the appropriate skills passed on to them.”

A staff member told us, “I feel I have a good support network at work from the home (registered) manager to the team leads and I have a good rapport with the team members. We have team meetings and regularly spot checks and supervisions.”

At the previous inspection in March 2023 the provider had failed to adequately manage the control and spread of infection within the service. This placed people at risk of harm and was a breach of regulation 12 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At this inspection provider had made improvements and the service was no longer in breach of regulation 12.

People were protected as much as possible from the risk of infection because the premises was kept clean, fresh and hygienic. There were some areas where wheelchairs had scuffed skirting boards and doorways which meant the paint was damaged and no longer a wipe clean surface. The registered manager advised that maintenance works were underway to address this area. They told us, “There is work ongoing with the environment. I had to prioritise people’s safety first.”

There were clear roles and responsibilities around cleaning and infection prevention and control in the home. Information about the risk of infection was shared appropriately with relevant partners and people using the service and visitors.

At the previous inspection the provider had failed to ensure risks related to medicines were appropriately managed. This placed people at risk of harm and was a breach of regulation 12 of The Health and Social Care Act 2008 (Regulated Activities) Regulations 2014. At this inspection provider had made improvements and the service was no longer in breach of regulation 12.

The registered manager told us of some work undertaken when they first came to the service to help ensure people’s medicines were appropriately prescribed, supplied and administered in line with the relevant legislation, current national guidance or best available evidence, and in line with the Mental Capacity Act 2005.

At the previous inspection we had found some medicines had been split in half to administer to people. The tablets had not been evenly split which showed people had been at risk of not receiving their medicines as required placing them at risk of potential harm. At this inspection we received assurances this practice was not continued.The provider and staff implemented medicines management best practice to ensure people received their medicines safely.

The room where people’s medicines were kept was clean, fresh and well organised. We checked a random sample of medicines stocks for 3 people and found the amounts held agreed with the balance on the records.Staff responsible for the administration of medicines had regular training and their competencies were assessed. Medicines were regularly audited and constantly monitored to help ensure safe and effective administration.