Archived: Arden House Nursing Home

Arden House is a nursing home registered to provide personal and nursing care for to up to 18 people over the age of 65. At the time of our inspection there were 14 people using the service.

We found the following examples of good practice.

¿ The service was receiving professional visitors to the service with robust infection control procedures in place. Visitors were received into the reception area on arrival where they were provided with guidance, personal protective equipment (PPE) and a health screening was completed. Each visitor also had their temperature checked by staff on arrival.

¿ People and staff had engaged with the routine testing scheme. Risks to people and staff in relation to their health, safety and wellbeing had been thoroughly assessed.

¿ The service was clean and hygienic. The registered manager had implemented additional cleaning tasks and schedules. Detailed infection prevention and control audits were completed on a weekly basis. This included observations of staff use of PPE and hand washing procedures.

¿ The provider had developed a package of policies and procedures in response to the coronavirus pandemic.

Arden House is a nursing home registered to provide personal and nursing care for to up to 18 people over the age of 65. At the time of the inspection 14 people were accommodated at Arden House.

People’s experience of using this service and what we found

Without exception, everyone we spoke to talked about the outstanding care they received at Arden House. Everyone was happy to be living there and spoke positively about all aspects of the service. People felt a sense of purpose and led fulfilling lives due to the exceptional support and approach of staff members. People felt in control of their care and able to contribute to the running of the home. People’s experience was summed up by a relative who said, “It is outstanding here. The standard of care is exemplary and all the staff and management without exception are making a real difference."

People who were at the end of their lives chose to stay at the home to receive continuity of care and be supported in their own home and familiar surroundings. People were extremely well cared for in an individualised, dignified way by staff who knew them well.

Staff had excellent knowledge of people which enabled them to support people in highly individualised ways including finding activities which increased their emotional wellbeing and promoted people’s physical and mental abilities.

People felt safe and were supported to maintain their independence.

Staff had access to excellent training. Champions were in place to lead on various topics including infection control, and end of life. As part of their lead roles champions considered best practice and how this could benefit people.

People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests; the policies and systems in the home supported this practice.

Strong relationships were formed between staff and people due to the continuity of staff and the exceptionally caring approach of staff members. Everyone spoke of how staff went above and beyond to ensure that they were happy and comfortable in the home. One relative said, “I am absolutely certain that my [relative] would not be here today if it was not for their excellent care, support and fulfilment here. Staff have an excellent understanding of the needs of older people and are also extremely kind, caring and supportive of all who come into the home.’’

Activities were led by the people living in the home around their individual interests and preferences. Both individual and group activities were available. These were well planned and included sensory activities to ensure they were inclusive for all people.

Any minor issues within the home were dealt with so they did not result in a formal complaint. People, family and friends felt that their views were respected, and they could provide feedback which would be acted upon.

Relatives and friends of people who had recently passed away described the staff as going above and beyond their expectations in terms of end of life care. One person who had dealings with the home over many years described the end of life care as ‘exemplary’. All staff were trained in end of life care and prided themselves on ensuring people had a dignified death with their loved ones and staff who knew them well.

The registered manager demonstrated a real passion for continual improvements. The registered manager’s passion and commitment were evident in all aspects of the home and was mirrored by the staff team. Professionals, staff, relatives and people living in the home spoke highly of the care, compassion and dedication of the registered manager. Many people living in the home felt they were a family unit.

For more details, please see the full report which is on the CQC website at www.cqc.org.uk

Rating at last inspection:

The last rating for this service was good (published 24 January 2017). At this inspection we have found that the service has improved to Outstanding in Caring and Responsive.

Why we inspected: This was a planned inspection based on the previous rating.

Follow up: We will continue to monitor information we receive about the service until we return to visit as per our re-inspection programme. If we receive any concerning information we may inspect sooner.

Arden House provides accommodation and nursing care for up to 18 people, some of whom live with dementia. At the time of our inspection there were 15 people living in the home.

The service had a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

There were risk assessments in place that gave guidance to staff on how risks to people could be minimised and how to safeguard people from the risk of possible harm. People’s medicines had been managed safely.

The provider had effective recruitment processes in place and there were sufficient staff to support people safely. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities and would seek people’s consent before they provided any care or support. Staff received supervision and support, and had been trained to meet people’s individual needs.

People were supported by staff who were exceptionally caring and respectful, and who knew them well. People enjoyed living in a person centred home which catered for their requirements.

People’s needs had been assessed, and care plans took account of their individual needs, preferences, and choices. The service supported people with health care visits, such as GP appointments, optician appointments, chiropodists and hospital visits.

There was a formal process for handling complaints and concerns. The registered manager encouraged feedback from people and acted on the comments received to continually improve the quality of the service. There were effective quality monitoring processes in place to ensure that the home was meeting the required standards of care.

We talked with four people who used the service and four sets of relatives who all told us that the care provided was very good and one relative commented that "nothing was too much trouble" for staff.

We saw that people's nutrition and hydration needs were assessed and that they were provided with appropriate and nutritious food.

The environment was clean and processes were in place to prevent and control the spread of infection.

There were adequate numbers of staff with the appropriate skills to meet people's needs.

We found that systems were in place to enable complaints to be identified and addressed.

We found that the home was meeting the standards we had inspected. People said that their privacy and dignity were respected and that they and their relatives had been involved in the decisions about their care and treatment. We noted from the care plans reviewed that people had an assessment of needs carried out. The care plans and the risk assessments had been reviewed regularly to reflect any changes in people needs. There were systems in place for the safe administration and management of medicines. Staff had been provided with relevant training and support for the work they did. There were systems in place to assess and monitor the quality of service.