Ardent Residential Care Home

On this page

• Overview
• Shared direction and culture
• Capable, compassionate and inclusive leaders
• Freedom to speak up
• Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion
• Governance, management and sustainability
• Partnerships and communities
• Learning, improvement and innovation

The provider failed to implement robust environmental control audits to identify concerns relating to the maintenance of the premises. The new registered manager was implementing quality assurance checks and audits, but these needed to be embedded into practice. Staff felt supported by the new registered manager and said they were approachable and friendly. The registered manager and staff were clear about their roles and responsibilities. People’s views about the service were sought and listened to.

This service scored 61 (out of 100) for this area. Find out what we look at when we assess this area and How we calculate these scores.

We did not look at Shared direction and culture during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Staff told us they felt supported by the newly registered manager and said the service was well run. Comments included, "I have very much felt supported by [registered manager]. The morale is good and a lot of [staff] have worked here quite a while and everyone is always cheerful it makes you want to come to work here.” And, "it is very good, friendly and I have felt welcomed and I have no problems.” And “[Registered manager] has improved things she is always accessible, and we can call her any time morning or evening or in the middle of the night if you are on a night shift. She is easy to talk to and she supports us with any concerns or issues.” The registered manager understood duty of candour, which is their legal duty to be open and honest with people when something goes wrong. For example, they ensured people and their relatives were informed of any incident that occurred and the actions they were taking to reduce the likelihood of re-occurrence.

The registered manager and staff team were open and honest throughout the assessment and responded immediately to any issues raised. The registered manager was aware of their responsibility to report specific events such as safeguarding or serious injury that occurred at the service through CQC statutory notifications.

We did not look at Freedom to speak up during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

We did not look at Workforce equality, diversity and inclusion during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.

Staff told us the registered manager had an open-door policy should they want to raise any concerns. One member of staff said, “[Registered manager] is really nice and very fair and her door is always open if you need to speak to her and she will listen to you and will deal with it.” The registered manager encouraged feedback from people, relatives and staff and had implemented processes for people to feedback their views on the service. We reviewed this feedback and found this was mostly positive. Staff told us they had the opportunity to feedback on their employment and could contribute their ideas to the running of the service.

At the last inspection we identified a breach of the Registration Regulations as the provider had not ensured the commission had been notified of incidents, as required by the regulations. At this assessment enough improvement had been made and the provider was no longer in breach of of this regulation. The registered manager had submitted CQC statutory notifications as required by law. At the last inspection we identified a breach of the regulation relating to good governance. The provider had failed to effectively assess, monitor, and improve the quality and safety of the service provided. At this assessment not enough improvement had been made and the provider remained in breach of this regulation. We identified provider governance systems were either not in place or embedded enough to demonstrate the quality and safety of the service was effectively managed particularly in relation to premises and equipment. Poor oversight and decision making had led to people and staff being placed at an increased risk of harm, as insufficient timely action had been taken in relation to the maintenance of the service. We found the lack of effective provider governance and oversight of the service placed people at risk of harm. This was a continued breach of regulation regulation relating to good governance. Although the new registered manager was developing processes and systems to monitor the quality and safety of the service. Such as collating feedback from people, staff and relatives and implementing new audit processes these had not yet been embedded into practice.

People and their relatives told us the registered manager and staff team acted quickly if a person was feeling unwell or had any issues of concern by contacting appropriate health and social care professionals. Staff explained they worked with partner agencies when needed to provide effective care and support.

The registered manager told us they attended care home forums and had contact with other registered managers to discuss best practices. Systems and processes were in place to work in partnership with the local GP and other healthcare professionals.

We did not look at Learning, improvement and innovation during this assessment. The score for this quality statement is based on the previous rating for Well-led.