What the CQC found at Arundel House

Medicines records showed that people received their medicines as prescribed. Staff who administered medicines had suitable training and completed the records correctly.

“Medicines were administered by staff who had received appropriate training and staff completed medicine administration records correctly.” from the report

The home supported visits from relatives and health and social care professionals. Relatives described staff as welcoming, friendly and helpful.

“They make it possible for me to visit, they are very accommodating.” from the report

People and relatives said they were happy with the home. A health professional said staff treated people with dignity and respect.

“With dignity and respect.” from the report

The home catered for medical and lifestyle diets, offered alternatives, and supported people to attend healthcare appointments.

“People's food preferences were assessed, and the service supported people to meet their dietary requirements in a person-centred way.” from the report

Health professionals reported good, longstanding working relationships with the home and said staff responded to their input.

“Health professionals told us their teams had long standing good working relationships with the home” from the report

Fire alarms, drills, smoke detectors, emergency lighting and related checks were not being completed. Inspectors also found broken window panes, unsafe window restrictors and other hazards, including an unlocked route to steep external steps.

“Fire alarms tests, fire drills, smoke detector checks, and emergency lighting safety checks and maintenance were not being carried out.” from the report

The laundry floor and sink area were damaged and unclean. Clean clothes were drying above dirty laundry, and cleaning checks were not being audited.

“The handwashing sink in the laundry was unclean, as was the area around the sink which was also in a state of disrepair.” from the report

The home had not completed mental capacity assessments where needed. Some deprivation of liberty applications had not been reviewed since 2014, so people's current rights and needs might not have been properly considered.

“The provider had not identified that when a person's needs changed, and they appeared to meet the criteria of being deprived of their liberty, a DoLS application needed to be considered.” from the report

Audits and records did not reliably identify risks or show whether improvements had been completed. Residents' meetings and surveys were also not taking place.

“Governance processes were not effective to ensure concerns could be identified and used to improve quality and safety of the service.” from the report

Staff had general training, but the provider had not ensured enough training about some people's needs, including epilepsy and learning disability. More training was arranged during the inspection.

“The lack of oversight of training meant the provider had not ensured staff received enough relevant training about people's specific needs, for example, epilepsy, learning disability.” from the report

Two staff had started before their DBS checks were received and had not had those checks renewed. CQC recommended that the provider review all DBS checks.

“Historically, 2 staff had started work before the provider had received their DBS check.” from the report