Archived: Arundel House

Updated 7 March 2019

We carried out this comprehensive inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection checked whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection site visit took place on 14 January 2019 and it was unannounced. It was undertaken by one inspector. Before the inspection we reviewed the Provider Information Return (PIR) the registered manager had sent to us. This is information we require providers to send us at least annually to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and improvements they plan to make. We reviewed the other information such as notifications we held about the service and the provider. A notification is information about important events the provider is required to send to us by law. We also reviewed the monitoring report we received from the local authority.

During the inspection we interacted with four people, four support workers, the registered manager, quality assurance officer and the nominated individual. We looked at four people’s care records and medicine administration record for eight people. We reviewed four staff member’s recruitment, training and supervision records. We also checked records relating to the management of the service including quality audits and health and safety management records. We carried out general observations to assess how people were supported by staff.

After the inspection, we spoke with two relatives to obtain their feedback about the service.

Updated 7 March 2019

This inspection took place on 14 January 2019 and was unannounced. Arundel House is a ‘care home’. People in care homes receive accommodation and nursing or personal care as single package under one contractual agreement. CQC regulates both the premises and the care provided, and both were looked at during this inspection. Arundel House provides a residential care and respite service for up to 18 adults with learning disabilities. At the time of our visit, there were 14 people using the service.

Arundel House has been developed and designed in line with the values that underpin the Registering the Right Support and other best practice guidance. These values include choice, promotion of independence and inclusion. People with learning disabilities and autism using the service can live as ordinary a life as any citizen. The care home is divided into four units. Each unit had its own separate kitchen/dining area and a lounge for people to socialise and relax. The service was designed in a way that allowed people to do the things they want and live as independently as possible whilst also getting support where needed.

At the last inspection of 24 May 2016 and 06 June 2016, we rated the service good. At this inspection we found the evidence continued to support the rating of good and there was no evidence or information from our inspection and ongoing monitoring that demonstrated serious risks or concerns. This inspection report is written in a shorter format because our overall rating of the service has not changed since our last inspection. We found the service remained Good.

There was a Registered Manager at this location. 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. The registered manager met their statutory responsibilities to the CQC.

There were enough experienced staff available to support people. Staff managed peoples’ medicines in a safe way. Staff had received training in safeguarding adults at risk and knew of actions to take to protect people from abuse. Risks to people were assessed and managed adequately. Lessons were learnt from incidents and when things go wrong. Staff followed infection control procedures to reduce risks of infection.

People’s needs were assessed and planned for following recommended guidance. People were supported with their meals and to meet their dietary needs. People were supported to access health and social care services they required to maintain their health and well-being. Staff worked closely with other services to ensure people’s care and support were effectively delivered.

Staff received adequate training, support and supervision to be effective in their roles. Staff and the registered manager understood their roles and responsibilities under the Mental Capacity Act (MCA) 2005. People were supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff supported them in the least restrictive way possible; the policies and systems in the service support this practice. People were supported appropriately to made decisions about their care and support. DoLS applications were made where necessary and the conditions of DoLS authorisations were followed.

The service had facilities suitable for people. People’s rooms were well decorated with personal items such as photographs. Staff treated people with dignity and respect. People were involved in their day-to-day care; and staff respected their choices. Staff encouraged and supported people to maintain relationships important to them. Staff communicated with people in the way they understood.

People had support plans in place which contained details about how their individual care and support needs would be met. People’s needs were regularly reviewed and support plans updated to reflect their current needs. The provider provided information to people in accessible formats. Staff understood equality and diversity issues and supported people appropriately to promote their protected characteristics such as disability, race, religion and culture. People were encouraged to follow their interests and develop daily living skills. People took part in a range of activities they enjoyed. Staff promoted people’s independence in the way they supported them.

People and their relatives told us they knew how to complain if they were unsatisfied with the service. The quality of the service was regularly monitored and assessed. Improvement plans were developed to address areas requiring improvement. The provider worked in partnership with other organisations to develop the service. Staff understood their roles and responsibilities. The service was committed to providing quality care to people. Staff had the leadership guidance and support they needed to fulfil their roles.