When we inspected the home there were 29 people living there. The home was laid out over two floors. Some people were unable to communicate with us verbally. During our inspection we spent time in the communal areas of the home observing people to see how they spent their time, and how staff interacted with them.We spoke with eight people who lived at Arden Park about their experiences of the service. We also spoke with four relatives or friends of people about their family member's experience. We observed the care that was given to people during our inspection. We looked at care records at the home.
We spoke with a range of staff including members of staff who provided personal care to people at Arden Park, the registered manager, the activities coordinator and a regional manager of the service.
We visited the service to check on a number of concerns that had been raised at the previous inspection in December 2013 to see whether improvements had been made. We found there had been improvements made since our last inspection.
During our inspection we looked to see whether we could answer five key questions: is the service safe, effective, caring, responsive and well led? Below is a summary of what we found. If you want to see the evidence supporting our summary please read the full report.
Is the service safe?
We looked to see whether there were the right levels of staff working at the service. We looked at the staff rotas which showed there were not enough staff to meet people's needs at all times. The provider increased the staffing levels at the service immediately after our inspection to address our concerns.
Safeguarding procedures were robust. The home had policies and procedures in relation to the Mental Capacity Act and Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards (DoLs). We saw no recent applications had been submitted. Relevant staff were trained to understand when an application should be made and how to submit one. The manager was aware of the latest guidance and information on DOLs and was planning a review of their procedures to ascertain whether any changes were required to their policy.
Systems were in place to make sure that managers and staff learnt from events such as accidents and incidents, complaints, concerns, whistle-blowing and investigations. This reduced the risks to people and helped the service to improve.
Is the service effective?
People's health and care needs were assessed before they came to the home to determine their needs and make sure the service could meet them effectively. Specialist dietary, communication and equipment needs had been identified in care plans where required.
We saw arrangements were in place for care plans to be reviewed regularly to make sure information about people's care and support needs remained appropriate and accurate.
People had access to a range of health care professionals some of which visited the home.
It was clear from our observations and from speaking with staff they had a good understanding of people's care and support needs and that they knew them well.
Is the service caring?
We saw staff were attentive to people's needs throughout our inspection. Staff interacted positively with people and staff gave people time to respond. We found staff showed patience when communicating with people who lived there.
People and relatives we spoke with were positive about the care provided. One person told us, "I think it is very good'it's relaxed for one thing. Meal times are fun because everyone's together. It's a good place this one.'
Is the service responsive?
We saw people were able to access help and support from other health and social care professionals when necessary. One relative told us, "Since X arrived they've had an eye test and had the chiropodist visit."
People were able to participate in a range of activities both in the home and in the local community.
People who used the service, their relatives and other professionals involved with the service completed satisfaction surveys. Where shortfalls or concerns were raised these were analysed and addressed.
We looked at how complaints had been dealt with at the service and found that complaints were investigated and dealt with in a timely way.
Is the service well-led?
The service had a quality assurance system in place to identify areas of improvement. We saw that there were recent audits in a number of areas including infection control. Records seen by us showed that identified improvements were addressed promptly. As a result the quality of the service was continuously improving.
We found staff were supervised appropriately. The manager and senior staff observed their working practices. We saw that regular supervision meetings were taking place every three months. These had been introduced following our inspection in December 2013 and were being monitored by the manager of the service. As part of the supervision procedure senior staff observed the work of care staff to monitor where performance could be improved, and to inform training and development planning.
People's personal care records were up to date and complete.