CQC report explained · a nursing home
What the CQC found at Arundel Park Lodge
Rated Good: inspectors found the home performing well and meeting their expectations.
- Safe?
- Good
- People were protected from abuse and avoidable harm. Risks were assessed, there were enough staff, call bells were answered promptly and medicines were administered safely.
- Effective?
- Good
- Staff had the training and support needed to care for people. Nutrition, specialist diets, healthcare access, communication needs and consent were generally managed well.
- Caring?
- Good
- People were treated with kindness, compassion, dignity and respect. Staff knew people well and involved them in choices about their care.
- Responsive?
- Requires improvement
- Staff generally provided personalised care, but care plans were not always accurate or person-centred. End of life planning was incomplete for some people.
- Well-led?
- Good
- The home had an open and inclusive culture, supportive leadership and systems for monitoring quality, accidents, incidents and complaints.
What inspectors found, September 2019
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind care, but records and planning were not always personalised.
This was an unannounced inspection. The inspector and an expert by experience spoke with people living in the home, relatives and staff. They also checked care records, medicines records, staff files and management records.
Inspectors found that people were safe, staff were trained and there were enough staff. Medicines were given safely. People described staff as kind, respectful and familiar with their needs. The home offered activities, access to health professionals and support with food, drink and communication.
The main weakness was the quality of care planning. Some plans were task-focused, did not clearly describe people's preferences or level of support, and contained conflicting information. Some people also did not have an end of life plan. The overall rating was Good, but Responsive was rated Requires Improvement.
Safe medicines
Medicines were given by trained nurses and records were checked regularly for omissions or errors.
“People received their medicines safely from trained nurses.” from the report
Enough familiar staff
Inspectors saw enough staff on duty, and people received support on time. The home had a consistent core of long-term staff.
“Turnover of staff hasn't been an issue. Provision of staff seems seamless. There is a definite core of long-term staff.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
People described warm relationships with staff. Staff respected privacy, choices and independence.
“People were treated with kindness and compassion and staff were friendly and respectful.” from the report
Activities and relationships
People could choose whether to join activities and had opportunities to maintain friendships and go out.
“There is always something going on and the activities co-ordinator does a fantastic job” from the report
Open management
Staff felt listened to and supported. The home used feedback, audits and incident reviews to improve its work.
“The service had a positive and welcoming atmosphere; staff morale and teamwork were good.” from the report
Care plans were not always clear
needs fixingSome care plans focused on tasks rather than the person's preferences. One person's records gave conflicting information about how much support they needed, which could put them at risk if staff relied on the wrong record.
“Care plans were clinical, and task focussed rather than reflecting people's individual preferences for how they wished their care and support to be delivered.” from the report
End of life plans were incomplete
needs fixingNot everyone had an end of life plan. Where the subject was difficult to discuss, there was no record showing when or how it should be raised again.
“not everyone had an end of life plan in place and it was unclear why this was.” from the report
Noise during meals
minorThe television was loud in two dining rooms, making it harder for people to communicate during meals.
“In two of the dining rooms the television volume was loud throughout the meal making communication difficult.” from the report
Dementia-friendly surroundings
minorInspectors said the corridor decoration did not help people living with dementia to orientate themselves or communicate.
“For people living with dementia, the decoration in the corridors did not did not enhance orientation or communication.” from the report
- 01How have you reviewed and corrected care plans so they clearly describe each person's preferences and level of support?
- 02How do you make sure new or agency staff receive accurate information about people's health needs?
- 03How do you discuss and record end of life wishes when someone finds the subject difficult?
- 04What action was taken about the loud televisions in the dining rooms?
- 05What changes have been made to help people living with dementia orientate themselves in the corridors?
This was an unannounced planned inspection covering all five CQC questions, including both the premises and the care provided. This explanation was written from the published report of 6 September 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, January 2017
Rated Good overall; inspectors found safe, kind and responsive care, but the home needed to improve how it involved people and relatives.
Inspectors visited the home without notice on 29 November 2016. They spoke with people, relatives, staff and health professionals. They reviewed care plans, medicines records, staff files, complaints, accidents and quality checks.
The home was rated Good for Safe, Effective, Caring and Responsive. Inspectors found enough trained staff, safe medicines practice, suitable care plans, respectful care, good support with food and drink, and activities suited to people's interests.
The home was rated Requires Improvement for Well-led. Regular meetings with residents and relatives had not taken place, so people did not always have a clear way to influence how the home was run. The provider knew about this and had arranged a meeting.
The overall rating was Good. The home had improved since the previous inspection in September 2015, when it was rated Requires Improvement and breached Regulation 12. Inspectors found that the earlier safety breach had been addressed and the improvements had lasted.
Safe medicines
Medicines were stored, administered and recorded safely. Records for medicines given when needed included why they were given and whether they worked.
“People received their medicines as prescribed.” from the report
Kind and respectful care
Inspectors found that staff treated people with kindness, protected their dignity and supported their choices and independence.
“People were supported with kindness and compassion.” from the report
Activities and social contact
The home provided group activities and one-to-one support, including for people who did not want or were unable to join group activities.
“There was a designated member of staff to arrange activities and occupation for people.” from the report
Improvements made
The provider acted on the earlier safety concerns. Inspectors found the improvements had been maintained.
“At this inspection, we found the provider had followed their action plan, the breach had been addressed and the improvements had been sustained.” from the report
Resident and relative involvement
needs fixingRegular meetings with residents and relatives had not taken place. This limited opportunities to raise concerns, suggest improvements and influence activities or how the home was run.
“We saw that regular meetings with residents and their relatives had not taken place.” from the report
- 01How often are residents' and relatives' meetings now held, and how are suggestions recorded and acted on?
- 02What changes have been made since the inspection to ensure people can influence activities and leisure choices?
- 03How do you check that each person's risk assessments and care plans remain up to date?
- 04How do you make sure medicines given when needed are recorded along with their effect?
- 05How can relatives give feedback or raise a complaint, and how will they receive a response?
This was an unannounced inspection that checked the home overall and followed up the safety breach found at the previous inspection. This explanation was written from the published report of 11 January 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 Arundel Park Lodge
3 rated inspections over 4 years: the service has improved, from Requires improvement to Good.
- September 2019Goodcurrent ratingstayed GoodSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Good
- January 2017Goodup from Requires improvementSafe: GoodEffective: GoodCaring: GoodResponsive: GoodWell-led: Requires improvement
- November 2015Requires improvementSafe: Requires improvementEffective: Requires improvementCaring: GoodResponsive: Requires improvementWell-led: Requires improvement
- September 2013
Report published without a new overall rating.
- September 2012
Report published without a new overall rating.
- January 2011
Registered with the Care Quality Commission on 21 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
46 live-in carers within about an hour of Brighton and Hove
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 £1,020 to £1,280 a week. 37 can care for a couple. 10 years' experience on average.
“Lottie showed incredible patience and empathy, adapting her routine to fit in with Mum's moods. Most importantly, Lottie's cheerful manner helped Mum to get some enjoyment out of life.”
“He was infinitely patient with them and got on very well with us to the extent that we now regard him as a personal friend.”
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.