Arden House

“We identified 2 breaches of the regulations in relation to consent and good governance.”

“Mental capacity assessments were not always completed in line with The Mental Capacity Act 2005. Assessments were not decision specific and did not always include detail to demonstrate how best interest decisions had been made or who had been involved.”

“People’s needs were assessed before they moved into the home and risk assessments and care plans were reviewed regularly. However, when people’s needs changed, care plans were not always updated in a timely manner to ensure staff had accurate information to provide safe care.”

“Additional monitoring, for example relating to hydration, nutrition or repositioning was inconsistent and did not clearly evidence that people received the care required. Audit systems were in place to review the quality-of-care people received, but we found these audits were not always accurate or effective.”

“There was a positive atmosphere in the home. Staff told us they enjoyed working at Arden House and felt supported by the registered manager and senior staff.”

“Staff received supervisions and training, which enabled them to carry out their work effectively. Staff understood their responsibilities to identify and report safeguarding concerns. They told us they felt confident to do so and that their concerns would be taken seriously by the registered manager. Medicines were managed safely and the environment was clean, tidy and well maintained. Where we found issues with the safety of the environment, these were rectified immediately.”

“At the time of our inspection the registered manager had been supporting another service within the provider group for a period of 6 months. The registered manager gave us assurance that they would return to working at Arden House full time to improve oversight and ensure compliance with regulatory standards.”

“We have asked the provider for an action plan in response to the concerns found during this inspection.”

“ ”