CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Arden House
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- Inspectors found enough staff, safe recruitment, effective safeguarding arrangements and medicines given as prescribed. They recommended recording window risk assessments and considering a risk assessment for pets.
- Effective?
- Good
- People's needs were assessed and reviewed. Staff had induction, training and supervision, and people were supported with food, drink, healthcare and decisions about their care.
- Caring?
- Good
- People, relatives and professionals gave very positive feedback. Inspectors found staff were kind, compassionate and respectful, and involved people in decisions as far as possible.
- Responsive?
- Good
- Care plans reflected people's likes, needs and communication requirements. People had a wide range of activities and were supported to take part in community life, although opportunities to develop domestic and cooking skills were limited.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home was organised and well run. The provider was actively involved, communicated with families and used audits, meetings and action plans to monitor and improve care.
What inspectors found, May 2019
Arden House was rated Good; inspectors found kind, safe and personalised care, with minor improvements suggested around window and pet risk assessments.
This was an unannounced inspection on 15 April 2019. One inspector reviewed care records, medicines records, staff files, audits and safety documents. They spoke with people living at the home, staff, the provider, relatives and outside professionals.
The home provides accommodation and personal care for up to eight people with learning disabilities and additional needs. Six people were living there during the inspection. Inspectors found enough staff, safe medicines practices, personalised care plans and a clean, homely environment.
People were supported to eat well, use health services and take part in activities in the local community. Staff were described as kind and caring. The home had good systems for checking quality and managing risks, although inspectors recommended recording window risk assessments and considering a risk assessment for pets.
All five areas were rated Good: Safe, Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led. The report says the provider had not previously been inspected by CQC, although the home was well established and its provider name had changed.
Kind and respectful care
People, relatives and professionals consistently described the care positively. Inspectors found that staff knew people well and treated them with dignity and compassion.
“People were supported and treated with dignity and respect; and involved as partners in their care.” from the report
Personalised support
Care plans recorded people's preferences and what mattered to them. Staff used this information to guide day-to-day support.
“People had care plans which were personalised and identified what was important to them, including their likes and preferences.” from the report
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, given and recorded safely. Only trained and assessed staff administered them.
“Medicine administration records (MAR) were accurate and clear and these confirmed people received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Activities and community life
People took part in activities linked to their interests, including gardening, creative groups, physical activities and community events.
“People enjoyed a wide range of activities that reflected their interests and preferences.” from the report
Good oversight
The provider used regular checks, audits, meetings and action plans to monitor the quality and safety of the service.
“Audits included action plans which enabled the provider to monitor and improve care for people.” from the report
Window risk records
minorWindows did not have opening restrictors. The provider judged the risk of harm to be low, but inspectors recommended that the risk assessment should be recorded.
“We recommended that the provider consider recording their window risk assessments.” from the report
Pet risk assessment
minorThe home had pets, including dogs, cats and fish. Inspectors said the provider should consider completing a specific risk assessment for them.
“The provider should consider completing a risk assessment relating to the pets living at the service.” from the report
Knowing the daily menu
minorSome people did not know what food would be served each day, although a pictorial menu booklet was available.
“Some people told us that they didn't know what food they were going to have each day” from the report
- 01What action have you taken to record and review the window risk assessments?
- 02Have you completed a risk assessment for the pets living at the home?
- 03How do you make sure people know the food choices for each day?
- 04How will you help my relative maintain or develop domestic and cooking skills?
- 05How are changes in people's needs shared with all staff through handovers and care plan reviews?
This was a planned, unannounced inspection that assessed all five CQC areas and gave ratings for the overall service. This explanation was written from the published report of 18 May 2019 by an AI system and checked against the report text: every quoted line appears in the report. It is a guide to the report, not a substitute for it. Read the full report on cqc.org.uk.
Every inspection of Arden House
Each visit the CQC has published, newest first, back to the day the home was registered.
- May 2019Goodcurrent ratingSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2018
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 9 March 2018.
Ratings and report dates from the Care Quality Commission, Open Government Licence v3.0. A home can also be visited without a new rating being published, so the timeline shows published inspections.
Weigh the report against the rest
Fees, photos and reviews from families
How to read CQC ratings and reports
What to check when you visit
At least 100 live-in carers within about an hour of Worcestershire
These are self-employed carers on PrimeCarers, the introductory agency that runs this directory. Each has a profile with their own rates and reviews from families, and you choose who to talk to.
Most charge £980 to £1,260 a week. 85 can care for a couple. 9 years' experience on average.
“I have never met a person who is so kind and thinks about others before himself to such an extent as Chris Malagala.”
“She was very caring, kind and patient to all his needs, she built up a wondetful rapport with him, she was dedicated and was there for him through good times as well as through the tough times”
Every carer has had an enhanced DBS check in the last 18 months, ID and right-to-work checks and an online interview. Their skills and training are for you to check with them. Carers set their own rates, and who is free changes week to week.