CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Arden House Residential Care Home
Rated Requires improvement: inspectors found the home was not performing as well as it should and told it what to change.
What inspectors found, May 2021
Rated Requires Improvement; the home was previously in Special Measures, but inspectors found improvements in safety and leadership were not yet fully embedded.
This was an unannounced, focused inspection on 22 April 2021. Inspectors checked whether the home had acted on problems found at the previous inspection, especially around safe care and treatment and management. They spoke with people and staff, reviewed care and medicine records, and contacted health professionals and relatives.
The home had improved since the previous inspection. Inspectors found better risk assessments, medicine systems, infection control, staffing arrangements and quality checks. People told inspectors they felt safe, staff were kind, and call bells were answered promptly.
The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Safe and Well-led were both rated Requires Improvement. The home was no longer rated Inadequate and was no longer in Special Measures, but inspectors said the improvements needed more time to become consistent everyday practice.
Better infection control
Inspectors found improved infection prevention arrangements, including suitable protective equipment, testing and cleaning checks.
“We were assured that the provider was using PPE effectively and safely.” from the report
Safe medicines practice
Medicines were stored, given and disposed of safely. Staff giving medicines had training and competency checks, although some recording problems remained.
“Medicines were stored, administered and disposed of safely.” from the report
Enough staff on duty
Inspectors found staffing levels and the mix of skills were suitable. People received care without being rushed and call bells were answered promptly.
“People received care and support in an unrushed way and call bells were answered promptly.” from the report
Improved quality checks
The home had introduced audits covering areas such as medicines, care plans, training and the environment. These helped identify work still needed.
“There was now a quality assurance system in place, and this included a number of audits and checks.” from the report
Kind and reassuring staff
People described staff positively and told inspectors they felt safe and looked after.
“The security makes me feel safe, the staff understand our problems,” from the report
Broken fencing
needs fixingInspectors found a broken fence at the rear of the property and broken fencing around the pond. These areas needed risk assessments to protect people from harm.
“However, there were areas identified and discussed during the inspection that needed to be risk assessed to ensure people's safety.” from the report
Medicine records
needs fixingSome medicine administration records had gaps. These were not always followed up straight away, and daily medicine counts were not yet consistent.
“We noted that there were some gaps on medicine administration records (MARs) which were circled but not followed up immediately” from the report
Care plans still being embedded
needs fixingCare plans and record keeping had improved, but some changes were not yet complete or consistently used in everyday practice.
“At this inspection we found improvements to record keeping, including care plans, had been made but further time was needed for these changes to be completed, fully implemented and embedded into every day practice.” from the report
Some areas difficult to clean
minorCleaning had improved, but parts of the building were still difficult to clean while refurbishment work continued.
“However, we found that areas of the home were difficult to clean.” from the report
- 01Has the broken rear fence and the broken fencing around the pond now been repaired and formally risk assessed?
- 02How are gaps in medicine administration records checked, followed up and explained?
- 03How far has the work to complete and embed the revised care plans progressed?
- 04What staffing levels are provided at night, given the concern raised about night staffing and the layout of the home?
- 05How are cleanliness and safety being maintained while refurbishment work continues?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led only; the other key question ratings were carried over from the previous comprehensive inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 15 May 2021 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.
What inspectors found, December 2020
Rated Inadequate and placed in special measures; inspectors found serious risks in safety, medicines, infection control and management.
This was an unannounced inspection in October 2020. It began as a targeted inspection about safety, staffing and management, then widened to a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led. Inspectors spoke with eight people, six staff and two health professionals, and reviewed care, medicines and fire safety records.
The home was rated Inadequate for Safe and Well-led. Inspectors found that risks were not properly assessed or managed. Medicines records had gaps, some safeguarding concerns had not been reported or investigated, and staff did not always have the training needed to support people's health and behaviour.
Infection control arrangements did not meet government guidance for COVID-19. The home was not consistently clean, shielding and zoning were not in place, and PPE was not always used safely. Inspectors said staff were kind and open, but the service was placed in special measures because of the overall Inadequate rating.
Kind staff
Inspectors found that staff were kind to people and wanted to provide good care. Staff were also open during the inspection.
“Staff were open and transparent during the inspection. Staff were kind to people and wanted to deliver good care.” from the report
Some partnership work
The management team had started working with local health and community services to improve people's health and wellbeing. This work was still continuing.
“The management team in the last month has actively looked for and took up opportunities to work in partnership with local health care and community services to improve people's health and wellbeing.” from the report
Safeguarding failures
seriousPeople were not always protected from abuse or improper treatment. Allegations about finances and incidents involving threats or aggression had not always been reported, investigated or acted on.
“People were not always protected from harm. We were aware that there had been allegations of financial abuse which were discovered in July 2020 and were currently being investigated.” from the report
Unsafe medicines
seriousMedicine records had gaps and some essential medicines were not given. Missing medicines, unsafe storage and a medicine cabinet incident had not been managed consistently.
“There were multiple gaps in people's Medicine Administration Records (MAR); there was a risk that people had not received their medicine, and this could impact on their health.” from the report
Poor infection control
seriousThe home did not consistently follow COVID-19 guidance. Inspectors found problems with shielding, zoning, PPE, cleaning, waste disposal and hand hygiene.
“We were not assured that the provider was meeting shielding and social distancing rules. For example, people who should be shielding were not doing so, including those with serious underlying health conditions.” from the report
Insufficient staff training
needs fixingSome staff had not completed essential or needs-specific training. Competency checks had not been completed, so the provider could not confirm that staff could carry out their roles safely.
“Staff competencies had not been undertaken following completion of the training booklets. This meant that the provider could not be assured that staff were competent in their roles.” from the report
Weak management checks
seriousAudits and management systems did not identify or correct important risks. Records were incomplete or out of date, and requested documents were not provided to inspectors.
“The provider had failed to establish and operate effective governance systems to assess, monitor and mitigate the risks to people's health, safety and welfare.” from the report
- 01What action has been taken to make sure medicines are given, recorded, stored and checked safely?
- 02How are safeguarding concerns, financial concerns, accidents and incidents now reported, investigated and followed up?
- 03What has changed in the home’s COVID-19 arrangements, including zoning, shielding, PPE, cleaning and waste disposal?
- 04Which staff have completed training in safeguarding, managing behaviour that may challenge, diabetes, addiction and alcohol dependency?
- 05How are care plans, risk assessments, audits and staff competency checks now kept accurate and up to date?
This was a focused inspection of Safe and Well-led, following specific safety concerns; the report does not give current ratings for the other three key questions. This explanation was written from the published report of 3 December 2020 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 Residential Care Home
7 rated inspections over 6 years: the service has improved, from Inadequate to Requires improvement.
- May 2021Requires improvementcurrent ratingup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
Read what inspectors found at Arden House Residential Care Home →
- December 2020Inadequatedown from GoodSafe: InadequateWell-led: Inadequate
Read what inspectors found at Arden House Residential Care Home →
- September 2018Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2016Requires improvementup from InadequateSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015InadequateSafe: InadequateEffective: InadequateCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Inadequate
- December 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- December 2010
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 10 December 2010.
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
19 live-in carers within about an hour of East Sussex
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 £1,000 to £1,400 a week. 13 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“When he point blank refused to go into hospital for a life saving blood transfusion she talked him through the situation and agreed to go in the ambulance with him and stayed until he was settled.”
“Una felt safe, secure and loved in her time with Debbie which is a gift that I am eternally grateful for.”
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.