CQC report explained · a residential care home
What the CQC found at Arden Park
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
What inspectors found, March 2019
Rated Good overall, but Safe Requires Improvement because inspectors found gaps in risk records, recruitment records and some environmental safety checks.
This was an unannounced, comprehensive inspection on 25 February 2019. Two inspectors and an expert by experience spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and the manager. They also observed care and checked care plans, medicines, staff files, complaints and quality checks.
The home was rated Good overall. Effective, Caring, Responsive and Well-led were all rated Good. People were generally treated kindly, their needs were assessed, meals and healthcare were provided, and staff supported people with dignity and independence.
Safe was rated Requires Improvement. Inspectors found enough staff and generally safe medicines practice, but some hot pipes were not covered, a trailing cable created a possible trip risk, one care plan did not explain how to respond to seizures, and recruitment records did not fully show that all checks had been completed.
The overall rating improved from Requires Improvement at the previous inspection in 2017. The home had also improved its food and mealtime experience and its quality monitoring. However, the Safe rating remained Requires Improvement.
Enough staff
Inspectors found there were enough staff to support people's needs. People and relatives generally said staff were available.
“There are plenty of them (staff) around. Always available during the week and weekends.” from the report
Improved food and mealtimes
People were more positive about food and mealtimes than at the previous inspection. Dietary needs, preferences and allergies were recorded and shared with the cook.
“I think the food is very good, all home cooked, sufficient.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff took time to talk with people, respected their choices and helped them remain independent where possible.
“When giving personal care I would talk to them and get on their level and if they take 10 minutes to get up, I won't rush them” from the report
Learning from incidents
The home recorded and reviewed accidents and incidents. Inspectors found examples where action had been taken to reduce the chance of problems happening again.
“Lessons were learnt when things had gone wrong.” from the report
Environmental safety risks
seriousSome hot water pipes were uncovered, creating a burn risk, and a trailing cable created a possible trip or fall risk. The manager said immediate action would be taken.
“Some of the hot water pipes were hot to touch and were not covered which meant there was a burn risk if people fell against them.” from the report
Incomplete risk and recruitment records
needs fixingOne care plan did not explain how staff should respond if a person had seizures. Recruitment records also did not consistently show that all required checks had been fully completed.
“Recruitment records did not consistently show some checks were fully completed.” from the report
Safeguarding notification
seriousOne safeguarding incident had not been reported to CQC as required, although it had been reported to the local authority and future risks had been reduced.
“One safeguarding incident had not been reported to us as required to assure us the necessary action had been completed.” from the report
Some care information was missing
needs fixingSome care plans did not contain enough detail about emotional support or end of life sensory preferences. This could make support less consistent.
“The sections, 'What is important to me' and 'What makes me feel better if I am anxious or upset', contained no information.” from the report
Activities and accessible information
minorOne person felt there was less variety in activities. The manager also acknowledged that some people might not be able to access information in suitable easy-read formats.
“They don't do much. When I first came there was a lot more activities, now we don't” from the report
- 01Have all exposed hot water pipes been insulated, and has the trailing cable been secured?
- 02How do you now make sure risk assessments explain exactly what staff should do, including during seizures?
- 03How do you check and record that all recruitment checks have been completed before staff start work?
- 04How do staff make sure people are observed taking their medicines every time this is needed?
- 05What has changed to provide more varied activities and information in formats people can understand?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and both the care and premises provided by the home. This explanation was written from the published report of 23 March 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.
What inspectors found, March 2017
Arden Park rated Requires Improvement; inspectors found caring staff and better staffing and medicines systems, but risks, mealtimes and management checks still needed improvement.
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection on 1 February 2017. Inspectors spoke with people living at the home, relatives, staff and visiting professionals. They observed care and reviewed care plans, risk assessments, daily records and quality checks.
The home had improved since the previous inspection in June 2016. Staffing levels and staff deployment had improved. Medicines were managed more safely. Staff training, safeguarding procedures, care plans and management oversight had also improved.
However, the home was not consistently safe, effective or well-led. Some risk assessments were out of date. Some people were unhappy with food and drinks, and mealtimes were not always well organised. The overall rating was Requires Improvement. Caring and Responsive were rated Good.
Improved staffing
More staff were available at busy times than at the previous inspection. Inspectors found staff were available when people needed them.
“This meant there were enough staff on duty to keep people safe.” from the report
Safer medicines
Medicines were ordered in advance, stored more safely and checked regularly. Staff who administered medicines had training and competency checks.
“This meant people received their medicines when they needed them and people's medicines were handled safely.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Staff were seen speaking calmly and patiently, respecting privacy and asking permission before entering bedrooms or providing care.
“We saw staff spoke to people in a patient, calm and caring way.” from the report
Personalised support and activities
Care plans included people's life histories, likes, dislikes and routines. People could take part in activities such as reminiscence sessions, quizzes and music.
“Care plans contained detailed information about people's life history, their likes and dislikes so that staff could use this to positively support and engage with them.” from the report
More open management
The home had introduced resident and family meetings, suggestion arrangements and regular quality questionnaires. Senior managers visited more often than before.
“The frequency of senior manager visits to the home had increased from none in the 12 months prior to our last inspection to at least one a month.” from the report
Risk records were not always updated
seriousSome risk assessments had not been reviewed in line with the home's own policy. One person had fallen three times in one month, but their assessment had not been reviewed.
“We identified further improvement was required in this area because some assessments had not been reviewed or updated monthly in-line with the provider's policy.” from the report
Mealtimes were not always suitable
needs fixingSome people were unhappy with the food and drinks. Tables were not properly prepared, visual choices were not provided and the preferred meal was not always available.
“We identified further improvements were required to improve the mealtime experience for people.” from the report
- 01How will you make sure every risk assessment is reviewed after a fall or other change in need?
- 02What has changed at mealtimes since the inspection, including the availability of meal choices and visual support for people living with dementia?
- 03How will you record and show that residents and families have taken part in care plan reviews?
- 04How are you checking that laundry is returned to the correct person?
- 05How will you make sure the improvements found at this inspection continue over time?
This was an unannounced comprehensive inspection covering all five key questions and checking progress after the previous inspection in June 2016. This explanation was written from the published report of 21 March 2017 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 Park
3 rated inspections over 3 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- March 2019Goodcurrent ratingup from Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Good
- March 2017Requires improvementstayed Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- August 2016Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: Requires improvementResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- July 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- February 2014
Report published without a new overall rating.
- April 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- March 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 25 January 2011.
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 Coventry
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 £950 to £1,260 a week. 80 can care for a couple. 11 years' experience on average.
“If you bump into her in the night on her way to the bathroom she will still inquire how you are and if everything is alright.”
“My mum would not eat, drink, bath nor sleep without her. In short, she was FAMILY and we loved her dearly”
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.