Ardent Residential Care Home

Updated 14 November 2024

Date of assessment: 25 November to 10 December 2024. Ardent Residential Care Home is a care home providing personal care to up to 23 people. At the time of this assessment there were 15 people living at the service. This assessment was completed to follow up on a warning notice we issued in February 2024 asking the provider to make improvements in relation to the safety of the environment. At this assessment we initially looked at the key questions, safe and well-led. Following concerns, we opened up the assessment to include the key question effective. We identified 5 breaches of the regulations. These were in relation to, safe care and treatment, safe environments, safe staffing, consent to care and treatment and the management of the service. The overall rating for this service remains ‘requires improvement’. In instances where CQC have decided to take civil or criminal enforcement action against a provider, we will publish this information on our website after any representations and/ or appeals have been concluded. We have also asked the provider for an action plan in response to our concerns.

Updated 14 November 2024

People did not live in a safe environment free from risks and hazards. People were not protected from the risk of infection and cross contamination. The service was dirty and there were unpleasant odours in areas of the service. People’s needs had not always been assessed and reviewed. Care records did not accurately reflect people’s needs and there was no indication people and their relatives had been involved in the assessment and the development of care plans or in reviews of their care. We found risks were not identified, managed or robustly monitored to ensure people were safe and protected from harm. People gave us mixed feedback about how safe they felt living at the service. Whilst some people told us they felt safe and staff were ‘Fantastic,’ others expressed concerns and told us about incidents that made them feel unsafe when people were left unsupervised by staff. We were not assured that people were cared for by staff that had the skills and knowledge required to care for them safely. People were not supported to have maximum choice and control of their lives and staff did not support them in the least restrictive way possible and in their best interests. Systems and processes in place to ensure people received their medicines appropriately were not robust and did not provide assurances that people always received their medicines as prescribed for them. Whilst we observed there were staff available in communal areas to ensure people’s physical care needs were being met, staff were having to cook and clean which impacted on the care and amount of time they could give people. People were cared for by staff that had been recruited safely.